text:
Author Archive

Parental Alienation: Anger and Assumptions

Parental Alienation: Anger and Assumptions

Copyright 2017 by Monika Logan, M.A., LPC, LSOTP

Human beings tend to make assumptions about the world around us and the people with whom we interact.  We take a quick glance and if someone is wearing ragged clothing, we assume he/she cannot afford a new outfit.  Perhaps a new person you met did not give a good first impression.  It is easy to assume that their “less-than” best presentation is representative of him/her or of all future interactions.  Maybe because you read a bad review about a restaurant, so rather than experiencing it for yourself, you forgo an excellent dining experience.  As applied to interactions with our children, if a child arrives home and appears irritated, we assume our child did not have a good time at the other parents home.  Or, if our child is learning well at school, outsiders may assume the child is well-adjusted and dismiss other potential problematic areas.  Yet another example, your child fails to spend time with you for a weekend or two and you assume your ex-spouse is the culprit.  You fail to recognize the child’s own contributions to the perceived rejection.  To make assumptions is to be human.

If we recognize that assumptions are part of human nature, then we are able to become cognizant of our potential assumptions and vigilantly strive to fact-check.  Engaging in meaningful conversations with others, can mitigate a lot of unnecessary blame, burden, and erroneous conclusions.  With regards to relationships, besides examining our assumptions, another area of opportunity is understanding our anger.  Similar to making assumptions, addressing anger is another part of the human condition.  It is helpful to think of anger like an iceberg.  For example, if your teenager tosses their backpack on the floor and slams the door afterschool, we observe what many would identify as anger.  However, like an iceberg, there is more going on below the surface.  Anger can manifest as the expression of other feelings that are often unseen.  Anger can be external and/or internal.  As an example, one child may become sullen and remain in his/her room, while another child may act out by kicking a closet door.  A problem arises though when we assume that the cause of the child’s anger has been created by our ex-spouse.  Certainly, in some case of alienation, a child’s anger stems from the actions of a parent who blatantly ignores a court order.  However, we must recognize that at times it appears as though our ex-spouse is mistakenly the source of our child’s anger.  It is imperative that we distinguish that many feelings are below the surface, if we are to effectively address anger.  When we fail to consider other possibilities for a child or adolescents rejection, such as his/or her own role, further problems are created.

In the area of helping alienated children and parents, quick fixes and easy answers are often highly desired and sought.  This is clearly understandable, because when we as humans hurt, we want the pain to stop.  If we are cut we reach for a Band-Aid, but deeper cuts require stitches.  We realize that time can become the enemy of a child or adolescent who is defiant and becoming contact resistant.  In pursuing help with overcoming parent-child contact problems, it is easy to gravitate to the “latest and greatest” answer(s) to alleviate our child or adolescent from psychological abuse.  Again, much like the iceberg, there are many nuances in treating alienated families.  There are often times more going on beneath the surface.  Treating a deep wound with a Band-Aid simply will not work.  What can a parent do?

  • Awareness and education are the key.
  • Early intervention is vital.
  • Check your assumptions.
  • Realize that time can be both your friend and your enemy.
  • Educate significant others about alienation.
  • A Crisis can be an opportunity to connect with an alienated child.
  • Do not counter reject your child or adolescent (think of the anger iceberg – your child does not hate you).
  • Correct your child/adolescents distorted views of you – timing is everything.  Silence is not always golden.
  • Work through intense emotions.  Help your child or adolescent understand what is going on beneath the surface.
  • Realize that hurting people act out (content and happy co-parents do not engage in constant denigration – again think of the iceberg).
  • Refrain from name calling and labeling your ex-spouse.  No, not everyone is a sociopath, borderline, and/or a narcissist.
  • Parent-child contact problems are best treated when caught early and can be corrected sooner vs. later.
  • Realize that letting go does not mean giving up (sometimes parents need a respite).

If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that sometimes our assumptions and preconceived notions are wrong, and therefore, our interpretation of events is incorrect. This causes us to overreact, to take things personally, or to judge people unfairly. ~ Elizabeth Thornton

Categories: Parents

Typical Behaviors of an Alienated Child

November 27, 2016 Comments off

Revises history to eliminate or diminish any positive memories of experiences with the rejected parent.

Has reactions and perceptions not justified by or disproportionate to the rejected parent’s behavior.

Has a stronger, but not necessarily healthy, psychological bond with the alienating parent than with the rejected parent.

Tells stories about one or both parents or the situation that are repetitive and lacking in detail and depth.

Denies hope for reconciliation.

Displays independent thinker phenomenon; he or she will claim beliefs about a rejected parent are his or her own and not the alienating parent.

Shows signs of role corruption, role reversal, or triangulation.

May struggle with internalizing problems such as anxiety, depression, phobic reactions, or low self-esteem.

May manifest signs of externalizing behavioral problems including, but not limited to bullying, sexual behavioral problems, or oppositional behavioral struggles.

Expresses worry for the preferred parent and vocalizes a need to care for that parent.

May appear to function adequately in some environments ( e.g. earning As in school) while struggling in other environments (struggles to maintain friendships).May bad-mouth rejected parent’s new family.

Demonstrates inconsistency between statements or allegations about rejected parent and behavior with the rejected parent.

 Posted by Monika Logan, M.A., LPC, LSOTP

Texas Premier Counseling Services, PLLC

 Evidenced Informed Information.  Adapted from Gardner 1985; Kelly & Johnston 2001; Warshak 2001; Baker 2005; Cartwright 2006 and Garber 2007.

Categories: Professionals

Parent-child relationship problems: Treatment tools for rectification counseling

December 14, 2015 Comments off

As counselors, we come in contact with clients who are angry or heartbroken and oftentimes feel defeated. This sense of pain and loss is frequently realized in the forensic setting in which I work with parents who are desperate to rebuild a parent-child relationship that is severely damaged or estranged. I also work with children who assert that they never want to see or speak with one of their parents again. Continue reading…

Categories: Professionals

Resources: Parent Alienation

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Task Force on Parenting Coordination. (2006). Guidelines for parenting coordination. Family Court Review,44, 164–181.

Austin, Jr., R. B. (2006). PAS as a child against self. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 56–64). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Baker, A. J. L. (2005). The long-term effects of parental alienation on adult children: A qualitative research study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(4), 289–302.

Baker, A. J. L. (2005). The cult of parenthood: A qualitative study of parental alienation. Cultic Studies Review, 4(1),

Baker, A. J. L. (2005). Parent alienation strategies: A qualitative study of adults who experienced parental alienation as a child. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(4), 41–63.

Baker, A. J. L. (2006). The power of stories/stories about power: Why therapists and clients should read stories about the parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(3), 191–203.

Baker, A. J. L. (2006). Patterns of parental alienation syndrome: A qualitative study of adults who were alienated from a parent as a child. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(1), 63–78.

Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Knowledge and attitudes about the parental alienation syndrome: A survey of custody evaluators. American Journal of Family Therapy, 35(1), 1–19.

Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Baker, A. J. L. (2010). Adult recall of parental alienation in a community sample: Prevalence and associations with psychological maltreatment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51(1), 16–35.

Baker, A. J. L., & Andre, K. (2008). Working with alienated children and their targeted parents. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, 11(2), 10–17.

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.

Baldwin, A., & Tabb, M. (2008). A promise to ourselves: A journey through fatherhoodand divorce. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319.

Benedek, E. P., & Schetky, D. H. (1985). Allegations of sexual abuse in child custody and visitation disputes. In E. P. Benedek and D. H. Schetky (Eds.), Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law (pp. 145–156). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Benedek, E. P., & Schetky, D. H. (1987). Problems in validating allegations of sexual abuse: Part 1, Factors affecting perception and recall of events. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(6), 912– 915.

Bernet, W. (1993). False statements and the differential diagnosis of abuse allegations. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(5), 903–910.

Bernet, W. (1995). Children of divorce: A practical guide for parents, attorneys, & therapists. New York: Vantage.

Bernet, W. (1997). Case study, allegations of abuse created in a single interview.Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(7), 966– 970.

Bernet, W. (1998). The child and adolescent psychiatrist and the law. In J. D. Noshpitz (Ed.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychiatry, Vol. 7 (pp. 438–467). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bernet, W. (2002). Child custody evaluations. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 11(4), 781–804.

Bernet, W. (2008). Parental alienation disorder and DSM–V. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(5), 349–366.

Blackstone-Ford, J., & Jupe, S. (2004). Ex-etiquette for parents, good behavior after a divorce or separation. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

Bond, R. (2007). The lingering debate over the parental alienation syndrome phenomenon. Journal of Child Custody, 4(1–2), 37–54.

Bone, J. M. (2003). The parental alienation syndrome, examining the validity amid controversy. Family Law, Section Commentator, 20(1), 24–27.

Bone, J. M., & Walsh, M. R. (1999). Parental alienation syndrome: How to detect it and what to do about it. Florida Bar Journal, 73(3), 44–47.

Bow, J. N., Gould, J. W., & Flens, J. R. (2009). Examining parental alienation in child custody cases: A survey of mental health and legal professionals. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 127–145.

Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7, 345–374.

Brody, B. (2006a). The misdiagnosis of PAS. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 209–227). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Campbell, T. W. (1992a). Psychotherapy with children of divorce: The pitfalls of triangulated relationships. Psychotherapy, Theory, Research, Practice, & Training, 29, 646–652.

Campbell, T. W. (1992b). False allegations of sexual abuse and their apparent credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(4), 21.

Campbell, T. W. (1993). Parental conflicts between divorced spouses: Strategies for intervention. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 12(4), 27.

Campbell, T. W. (2005). Why doesn’t parental alienation occur more frequently? The significance of role discrimination. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(5), 365–377.

Cartwright, G. F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21(3), 205–215.

Cartwright, G. F. (2006). Beyond parental alienation syndrome: Reconciling the alienated child and the lost parent. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 286–291). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage: Dealing with programmedand brainwashed children. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Cooke, L. (1995). Parental alienation syndrome: A hidden facet of custody disputes. First Place, Lieff Award, Canadian Bar Association, Ottawa, Ontario.

Darnall, D. (1999). Parental alienation, not in the best interest of the children. North Dakota Law Review, 75, 323.

Darnall, Douglas. (2008). Divorce Casualties: Understanding Parental Alienation (2nd ed). Lanham, MD: National Book Network.

Drozd, L. M. (2009). Rejection in cases of abuse or alienation in divorcing families. In R. M. Galatzer-Levy, L. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.), The scientific basis for child custody decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N.W. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation, &/or estrangement? A decision tree. Journal of Child Custody, 1(3), 65–106.

Dunne, J., & Hedrick, M. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: An analysis of sixteen selected cases. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 21(3–4), 21–38.

Eastman, A. M., & Moran T. J. (1991). Multiple perspectives: Factors related to differential diagnosis of sex abuse and divorce trauma in children under six. Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 159–176.

Ellis, E. M. (2000). Divorce wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ellis, E. M. (2005). Help for the alienated parent. American Journal of Family Therapy,33(5), 415–426.

Ellis, E. M. (2007). A stepwise approach to evaluating children for parental alienation syndrome. Journal of Child Custody, 4(1–2), 55–78.

Ellis, E. M., & Boyan, S. (in press). Intervention strategies for parent coordinators in parental alienation cases. American Journal of Family Therapy.

Fidler, B. J., Bala, N., Birnbaum, R., & Kavassalis, K. (2008a). Understanding child alienation and its impact on families. In B. J. Fidler et al., Challenging issues in child custody assessments, A guide for legal and mental health professionals (pp. 203–229). Toronto, Canada: Thomson Carswell.

Fidler, B. J., Bala, N., Birnbaum, R., & Kavassalis, K. (2008b). Challenging issues in child custody assessments: A guide for legal and mental health professionals. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Carswell.

Garber, B. D. (1996). Alternatives to parental alienation syndrome: Acknowledging the broader scope of children’s emotional difficulties during parental separation and divorce. New Hampshire Bar Journal, 37(1), 51–54.

Garber, B. D. (2004a). Therapist alienation: Foreseeing and forestalling third-party dynamics undermining psychotherapy with children of conflicted caregivers. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 35(4), 357–363.

Garber, B. D. (2004b). Parental alienation in light of attachment theory, consideration of the broader implications for child development, clinical practice, & forensic process. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 49–76.

Gardner, R. A. (1982). Family evaluation in child custody litigation. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2), 3–7.

Gardner, R. A. (1986). Child custody litigation: A guide for parents and mental health professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1987a). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1987b). Child custody. In J. D. Noshpitz (Ed.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychiatry, Vol. 5 (pp. 637–646). New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, R. A. (1989b). Differentiating between bona fide and fabricated allegations of sexual abuse of children. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 5, 1–25.

Gardner, R. A. (1991a). Legal and psychotherapeutic approaches to the three types of parental alienation syndrome families: When psychiatry and law join forces. Court Review, 28(1), 14–21.

Gardner, R. A. (1991b). Sex abuse hysteria: Salem witch trials revisited. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1992a). The parental alienation syndrome, A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1992b). True and false allegations of child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1994). The detrimental effects on women of the misguided gender egalitarianism of the child-custody resolution guidelines. Academy Forum, 38(1/2), 10–13.

Gardner, R. A. (1998a). Recommendations for dealing with parents who induce a parental alienation syndrome in their children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28(3–4), 1–23.

Gardner, R. A. (1998b). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals, 2nd ed. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1998c). The Burgess decision and the Wallerstein brief. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 26(3), 425–432.

Gardner, R. A. (1999a). Family therapy of the moderate type of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(3), 195–212.

Gardner, R. A. (1999b). Guidelines for assessing parental preference in child-custody disputes. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 30(1), 1–9.

Gardner, R. A. (1999c). Differentiating between parental alienation syndrome and bona fide abuse-neglect. American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(2), 97–107.

Gardner, R. A. (2001a). Should courts order PAS children to visit/reside with the alienated parent? A follow-up study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(3), 61–106.

Gardner, R. A. (2001b). Therapeutic interventions for children with parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (2001c). Parental alienation syndrome (PAS): Sixteen years later. Academy Forum, 45(1), 10–12.

Gardner, R. A. (2002a). Denial of the parental alienation syndrome also harms women. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(3), 191–202.

Gardner, R. A. (2002b). Parental alienation syndrome vs. parental alienation: Which diagnosis should evaluators use in child-custody disputes? American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(2), 93–115.

Gardner, R. A. (2002d). Misinformation versus facts about the contributions of Richard A. Gardner, M.D. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(5), 395– 416.

Gardner, R. A. (2003a). Does DSM-IV have equivalents for the parental alienation syndrome (PAS) diagnosis? American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(1), 1–21.

Gardner, R. A. (2003b). The judiciary’s role in the etiology, symptom development,& treatment of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 21(1), 39–64.

Gardner, R. A. (2004a). Commentary on Kelly and Johnston’s “The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome.” Family Court Review, 42(4), 611–621.

Gardner, R. A. (2004b). The relationship between the parental alienation syndrome: (PAS) and the false memory syndrome (FMS). American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(2), 79–99.

Gardner, R. A. (2004c). The three levels of parental alienation syndrome alienators: Differential diagnosis and management. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 25(3), 41–76.

Gardner, R. A. (2006a). The parental alienation syndrome and the corruptive power of anger. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 33–48). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Gardner, R. A. (2006b). Future predictions on the fate of PAS children: What hath alienators wrought? In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 179–194). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Gardner, R. A., Sauber, S. R., & Lorandos, D. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome: Conceptual, clinical and legal considerations. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Garrity, C. B., & Baris, M. A. (1994). Caught in the middle: Protecting the children of high-conflict divorce. New York: Lexington Books.

Gaulier, B., Margerum, J., Price, J. A., & Windell, J. (2007). Defusing the high-conflict divorce: A treatment guide for working with angry couples. Atascadero, CA: Impact Publishers.

Gordon, R. M. (1998). The Medea complex and the parental alienation syndrome: When mothers damage their daughter’s ability to love a man. In G. H. Fenchel (Eds.), The mother-daughter relationship echoes through time (pp. 207–225). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Gordon, R. M., Stoffey, R., & Bottinelli, J. (2008). MMPI-2 findings of primitive defenses in alienating parents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(3), 211–228.

Gottlieb, D. S. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome: An Israeli perspective, reflections and recommendations. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 90–107). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Haas, T. O. (2004). Child custody determinations in Michigan: Not in the best interests of children or parents. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 81, 333.

Hamarman, S., & Bernet, W. (2000). Evaluating and reporting emotional abuse in children: Parent-based, action-based focus aids in clinical decision-making. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(7), 928– 930.

Jaffe, P., Ashbourne, D., & Mamo, A. (2010). Early identification and prevention of parent-child alienation: A framework for balancing risks and benefits of intervention. Family Court Review, 48(1), 136-152.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differential approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500–523.

Jeffries, M. (2009). A family’s heartbreak: A parent’s introduction to parental alienation. Stamford, CT: A Family’s Heartbreak, LLC.

Jenkins, S. (2002). Are children protected in the family court? A perspective from Western Australia. ANZJFT Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 23(3), 145–152.

Johnston, J. R. (1993). Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. Depner and J. H. Bray (Eds.), Non–residential parenting, new vistas in family living (pp. 109–135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-conflict divorce. Future Child, 4(1), 165–182.

Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of alienation in children of divorce. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(2), 158–170.

Johnston, J. R. (2005). Children of divorce who reject a parent and refuse visitation: Recent research and social policy implications for the alienated child. Family Law Quarterly, 38(4), 757–775.

Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. G. (1999). Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York: Free Press.

Johnston, J. R., Campbell, L. E. G., & Mayes, S. S. (1985). Latency children in postseparation and divorce disputes. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(5), 563–574.

Johnston, J. R., & Girdner, L. K. (2001). Family abductors: Descriptive profiles and preventive interventions. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1, 1–7.

Johnston, J. R., & Kelly, J. B. (2004). Rejoinder to Gardner’s “Commentary on Kelly and Johnston’s ‘The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome.’” Family Court Review, 42(4), 622–628.

Johnston, J. R., & Kelly, J. B. (2004). Commentary on Walker, Brantley, & Rigsbee’s (2004) “A critical analysis of parental alienation syndrome and its admissibility in the family court.” Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 77–89.

Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. M. (1989). Ongoing postdivorce conflict: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(4), 576–592.

Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43(2), 283–294.

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Clinical ratings of parenting capacity and Rorschach protocols of custody-disputing parents: An exploratory study. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 159–178.

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Is it alienating parenting, role reversal or child abuse? A study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(4), 191–218.

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005c). The psychological functioning of alienated children in custody disputing families: An exploratory study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(3), 39–64.

Kelly, J. (2010). Commentary on Family bridges: Using insights from social science to reconnect parents and alienated children. Family Court Review, 48(1), 81–90.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352–362.

Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family Court Review, 38(3), 297–311.

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review (Special Issue: Alienated children in divorce), 39(3), 249–266.

Klass, J. L., & Klass, J. V. (2005). Threatened mother syndrome (TMS): A diverging concept of parental alienation syndrome (PAS). American Journal of Family Law, 18(4), 189–191.

Kopetski, L. (1998). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome: Part I. Colorado Lawyer, 27(2), 65–68.

Kopetski, L. (1998). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome: Part II. Colorado Lawyer, 27(3), 61–64.

Kopetski, L. (2006). Commentary: Parental alienation syndrome. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 378–390). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Kopetski, L, Rand, D. C., & Rand, R. (2006). Incidence, gender, & false allegations of child abuse, data on 84 parental alienation syndrome cases. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 65–70). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Kuehnle, K. (1998). Child sexual abuse evaluations: The scientist–practitioner model. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16(1), 5–20.

Kuehnle, K. (1998b). Ethics and the forensic expert: A case study of child custody involving allegations of child sexual abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 8(1), 1–18.

Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kuehnle, K., Greenberg, L.R., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2004). Incoporating the principles of scientifically based child interviews into family law cases. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 97–114.

Levy, A. M. (1982). Disorders of visitation in child custody cases. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 10(4), 471–489.

Levy, D. (1992). Review of parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. American Journal of Family Therapy, 20(3), 276–277.

Levy, D. L. (2006). The need for public awareness and policy makers to respond to PAS: A neglected form of child abuse. In R. A. Gardner, S. R.. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 153–162). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Lorandos, D. (2006a). Parental alienation syndrome in American law. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 333–351). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Lowenstein, L. F. (1999b). Parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Justice of the Peace, 163(4), 171–174.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2001). Tackling parental alienation. Justice of the Peace, 165(6), 102.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2002). Problems suffered by children due to the effects of parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Justice of the Peace, 166(24), 464–466.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2003). Tackling parental alienation: A summary. Justice of the Peace, 167(3), 29–30.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2006a). Overturning the programming of a child. Journal of Parental Alienation, 1(5), 1–12.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2006b). Signs of PAS and how to counteract its effects. Journal of Parental Alienation, 2(2), 26–30.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2006c). The psychological effects and treatment of parental alienation syndrome. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 292–301). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2007). Parental alienation: How to understand and address parental alienation resulting from acrimonious divorce or separation. Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK: Russell House Publishing.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2008). Reducing the hostility. Justice of the Peace, 172(20), 322– 324.

Luftman, V. H., Veltkamp, L. J., Clark, J. J., Lannacone, S., & Snooks, H. (2005). Practice guidelines in child custody evaluations for licensed clinical social workers. Clinical Social Work Journal, 33(3), 327–357

Machuca, L. P. (2005). Parental alienation syndrome: Perceptions of parental behaviors and attitudes in divorced vs. non-divorced families. Dissertation, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska.

Maidment, S. (1998). Parental alienation syndrome: A judicial response? Family Law, 28, 264–266.

Major, J. A. (2000). Breakthrough parenting: Moving your family from struggle to cooperation. Los Angeles: Breakthrough Parenting Services.

Major, J. A. (2006). Helping clients deal with parental alienation syndrome. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 276–285). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Mart, E. G. (2007). Issue focused forensic child custody assessment. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.

Meadow, R. (1993). False allegations of abuse and Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 68(4), 444.

Meister, R. (2003). Review of Therapeutic interventions for children with parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 321–324.

Mendelson, Rt. (1998). A family divided: A divorced father’s struggle with the child custody industry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Mitcham–Smith, M., & Henry, W. J. (2007). High-conflict divorce solutions: Parenting coordination as an innovative co-parenting intervention. Family Journal, 15(4), 368–373.

Moss, D. C. (1988). Teaching kids to hate. ABA Journal, 74, 19–20. Murray, K. (1999). When children refuse to visit parents: Is prison an appropriate remedy? Family Court Review, 37(1), 83–98.

National Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Child Custody Law. (1998). Legal and mental health perspectives on child custody law: A deskbook for judges. Eagan, MN: West Group.

Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2009). Evaluating PAS: A critique of Elizabeth Ellis’s “A stepwise approach to evaluating children for PAS.” Journal of Child Custody, 6, 322–325.

Ney, T. (1995). True and false allegations of child sexual abuse: Assessment and case management. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publisher.

Nicholson, E. B., & Bulkley, J., (Eds.). (1988). Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation cases. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Nurcombe, B., & Partlett, D. F. (1994). Child mental health and the law. New York: Free Press.

Palmer, N. R. (1988). Legal recognition of the parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(4), 361–363.

Pearl, P. S. (1994). Emotional abuse. In J. A. Monteleone & A. E. Brodeur (Eds.), Child maltreatment, A clinical guide and reference (pp. 259–282). St. Louis, MO: G. W. Medical Publishing.

Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, & behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(2), 295–307.

Pett, M. A., Wampold, B. E., Turner, C. W., & Vaughan-Cole, B. (1999). Paths of influence of divorce on preschool children’s psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(2), 145–164.

Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2005). The role of exclusion in maintaining ingroup inclusion. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (p. 89–112). New York: Psychology Press.

Pollack, D., & Mason, S. (2004). In the best interest of the child. Family Court Review, 42(1), 74–84.

Price, J. L., & Pioske, K. S. (1994). Parental alienation syndrome: A developmental analysis of a vulnerable population. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 32(11), 9–12.

Racusin, R., Copans, S. A., & Mills, P. (1994). Characteristics of families of children who refuse post-divorce visits. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 792–801.

Rand, D. C. (1997a). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome: Part I. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15(3), 23–52.

Rand, D. C. (1997b). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome: Part II. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15(4), 39–92.

Rand, D. C. (in press). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome: Part IV, Critics of parental alienation syndrome and the politics of science: Part I. American Journal of Family Therapy.

Rand, D. C., & Rand, R., & Kopetski, L. (2005). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome: Part III: The Kopetski follow-up study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(1), 15–43.

Reay, K. M. (2007). Psychological distress among adult children of divorce who perceive experiencing parental alienation syndrome in earlier years. Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Reich, W. (1949). Character analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Orgone Institute Press.

Reischer, H. (1999). Review of The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(3), 504–506.

Reppucci, N. D. (1984). The wisdom of Solomon: Issues in child custody determinations. In N. D. Reppucci et al. (Eds.), Children, mental health, & the law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, P. (2006). A kidnapped mind: A mother’s heartbreaking memoir of parental alienation. Toronto, Canada: Dundurm.

Rohrbaugh, J. B. (2008). A comprehensive guide to child custody evaluations, mental health and legal perspectives. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Roseby, V., & Johnston, J. R. (1995). Clinical interventions with latency-age children of high conflict and violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(1), 48–59.

Roseby, V., & Johnston, J. R. (1998). Children of Armageddon: Common developmental threats in high-conflict divorcing families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7(2), 295–309.

Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attribution processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 880–892.

Rueda, C. A. (2003). Parental alienation syndrome: An inter-rater reliability study. Dissertation, Walden University.

Rueda, C. A. (2004). An inter-rater reliability study of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(5), 391–403.

Schacht, T. E. (1999). Prevention strategies to protect professionals and families involved in high-conflict divorce. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 22, 565–581.

Schreier, H. A. (1996). Repeated false allegations of sexual abuse presenting to sheriffs: When is it munchausen by proxy? Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(10), 985– 991.

Schultz, G. C. (2007). Unlawful flight: A parental kidnapping. New York: Wind Blown Books.

Schutz, B. M., Dixon, E. B., Lindberger, J. C., & Ruther, N. J.,(1989). Solomon’s sword: A practical guide to conducting child custody evaluations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Siegel, J. C. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 validity indicators and initial presentation in custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(3), 55–64.

Siegel, J. C., & Langford, J. S. (1998). MMPI-2 validity scales and suspected parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(4), 5–14.

Simons, V., Grossman, L. S., & Weiner, B. J. (1990). A study of families in high-conflict custody disputes: Effects of psychiatric evaluation. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 18(1), 85–97.

Sinha, A. K., Singh, A. P., & Kumari, A. (1988). Parent evaluation as a function of sex and alienation. Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research, 3(1), 29–33.

Stahl, P. M. (1999b). Personality traits of parents and developmental needs of children in high-conflict families. Academy of Certified Family Law, Specialists Newsletter, Winter 1999(3), 8–16.

Stahl, P. M. (1999c). Alienation and alignment of children. California Psychologist, 32(3), 23–29.

Stahl, P. M. (2003). Understanding and evaluating alienation in high-conflict custody cases. Wisconsin Journal of Family Law, 24(1), 20–26.

Stahl, P. M. (2007). Parenting after divorce: resolving conflicts, and meeting your children’s needs (2nd ed.). Atascadero, CA: Impact Publishers.

Stoltz, J. M., & Key, T. (2002). Resistance to visitation: Rethinking parental and child alienation. Family Court Review, 40(2), 220–231.

Stoner-Moskowitz, J. (1998). The Effect of parental alienation syndrome and interparental conflict on the self–concept of children of divorce. Dissertation, Miami Institute of Psychology of the Caribbean Center for Advanced Studies, Miami, Florida.

Strauss, A. C., Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sullivan, M., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Legal and psychological management of cases with an alienated child. Family Court Review, 39(3), 299–315.

Summers, C. C., & Summers, D. M. (2006). Parentectomy in the crossfire. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(3), 243–261.

Summers, D. M., & Summers, C. C. (2006). Unadulterated arrogance: Autopsy of the narcissistic parental alienator. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(5), 399–428.

Turkat, I. D. (1994). Child visitation interference in divorce. Clinical Psychology Review, 14(8), 737–742.

Turkat, I. D. (1995). Divorce related malicious mother syndrome. Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 253–264.

Turkat, I. D. (2000). Custody battle burnout. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(3), 201–215.

Turkat, I. D. (2002). Parental alienation syndrome: A review of critical issues. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 18, 131–176.

Turkat, I. D. (2005). False allegations of parental alienation. American Journal of Family Law, 19, 1–15.

ValueOptions. (2006). V-Codes, Relational problems. In ValueOptions Provider Handbook. Available at: Handbook.htm

Vassiliou, D. (2005). The impact of the legal system on parental alienation syndrome. Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.

Vassiliou, D., & Cartwright, G.F. (2001). The lost parents’ perspective on parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(3), 181– 191.

Waldron, K. H., & Joanis, D. E. (1996). Understanding and collaboratively treating parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Law, 10(3), 121–133.

Walker, A. J. (2006). The extreme consequence of parental alienation syndrome: The Richard Lohstroh case of a child driven to kill his father: Will courts move toward allowing children to use parental alienation syndrome as a defense to the crime of murder of their own parent? Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 27(3), 153–164.

Walker, L. E. A., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2004a). A critical analysis of parental alienation syndrome and its admissibility in the family court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47–74.

Walker, L. E. A., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2004b). Response to Johnston and Kelly critique of PAS article. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 91–97.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, & children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (2003). What about the kids? Raising your children before, during, & after divorce. New York: Hyperion.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (1998). The long-term impact of divorce on children: A first report from a 25-year study. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 36, 368–383.

Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. M., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: The 25 year landmark study. New York: Hyperion.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256–269.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup. New York: Basic Books.

Walsh, M. R., & Bone, J. M. (1997). Parental alienation syndrome: An age–old custody problem. Florida Bar Journal, 71(6), 93–96.

Wamboldt, M. Z., Wamboldt, F. S., Gavin, L., & McTaggart, S. (2001). A parent-child relationship scale derived from the child and adolescent psychiatric assessment (CAPA). Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(8), 945–953

Ward, P., & Harvey, J. C. (1993). Family wars: The alienation of children. New Hampshire Bar Journal, 34(1), 30–40.

Warshak, R. A. (1999). Psychological syndromes: Parental alienation syndrome. In R. Orsinger (Eds.), Expert Witness Manual (pp. 3–27). Austin, TX: State Bar of Texas.

Warshak, R. A. (2000). Remarriage as a trigger of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(3), 229–241.

Warshak, R. A. (2001). Divorce poison: Protecting the parent-child bond from a vindictive ex. New York: HarperCollins.

Warshak, R. A. (2001). Current controversies regarding parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(3), 29–59.

Warshak, R. A. (2002). Misdiagnosis of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(2), 31–52.

Warshak, R. A. (2003). Bringing sense to parental alienation: A look at the disputes and the evidence. Family Law Quarterly, 37(2), 273–301.

Warshak, R. A. (2003). Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children. Family Relations, 52(4), 373–384.

Warshak, R. A. (2006). Social science and parental alienation: Examining the disputes and the evidence. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome, conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 352–371). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Warshak, R. A. (2010). Family Bridges: Using insights from social science to reconnect parents and alienated children. Family Court Review, 48(1), 48–80.

Warshak, R. A. (2010). Alienating audiences from innovaton: The perils of polemics, ideology, & innuendo. Family Court Review, 48(1), 153–163.

Warshak, R. A. (2010). Divorce poison: How to protect your family from badmouthing and brainwashing. New York: HarperPaperbacks.

Warshak, R. A., & Otis, M. R. (2010). Helping alienated children with family bridges: Practice, research, & the pursuit of “humbition.” Family Court Review, 48(1), 91–97.

Watson, A. S. (1969). The children of Armageddon: Problems of custody following divorce. Syracuse Law Review, 21, 55–86.

Weigel, D. J., & Donovan, K. A. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome, diagnostic and triadic perspectives. Family Journal, 14(3), 274–282

Weintraub, P., & Hillman, T. (2005). Complete idiot’s guide to surviving divorce (3rd ed.). New York: Penguin Group.

Weir, K. (2006). Clinical advice to courts on children’s contact with their parents following parental separation. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(1), 40– 46.

Westman, J. C., Cline, D. W., Swift, W. J., & Kramer, D. A. (1970). Role of child psychiatry in divorce. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23, 416–420.

Willbourne, C., & Cull, L. (1997). The emerging problem of parental alienation. Family Law, 27, 807–808.

Williams, R. J. (2001). Should judges close the gate on PAS and PA? Family Court Review (Special Issue: Alienated children in divorce), 39(3), 267–281.

Williams, S. (2006). Book review of A handbook of divorce and custody, forensic, developmental, & clinical perspectives. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(1), 136.

Wolchik, S. A., & Karoly, P. (Eds.). (1985). Children of divorce: Empirical perspective on adjustment. Dalton, OH: Gardner Press.

Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome, A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27(4), 1367–1415.

Worenklein, A. (1992). Custody litigation and parental alienation. International Journal of Psychology, 27(3–4), 226.

Categories: Peer Review

NOW’s Opposition to PAS Inclusion in DSM-V Anti-Science, Anti-Dad, Anti-Mom, Anti-Child

NOW’s Opposition to PAS Inclusion in DSM-V Anti-Science, Anti-Dad, Anti-Mom, Anti-Child

July 2nd, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The National Organization for Women’s reputation for honesty and integrity hit an all-time low with the NOW Foundation’s publication of this screed against recognition of Parental Alienation Syndrome. The piece recycles most of the long-discredited notions about PAS we see so often and it does so for the purpose of opposing fathers’ rights to their children. Far worse, in doing so, NOW’s public stance is frankly anti-child. Put succinctly, NOW’s position is anti-science, anti-father and anti-child. Ultimately, it’s anti-mother as well, ironic as that may be.

Over almost thirty years, the science on PAS has been building steadily. In the 1980s, six different researchers working independently began advancing the idea that children sometimes were saddled with a parent who was determined to exclude the other parent from the child’s life. Unsurprisingly, the parent’s campaign of alienation often occurred in the context of divorce and child custody cases. They described the parental behavior and its effects on the children with one researcher, Dr. Richard Gardner, calling those effects Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Over the years, countless researchers and clinicians have observed similar behaviors on the part of parents and some have studied the effects on children which turn out to last a lifetime in some cases. By now, there are several book-length treatises on the subject, the most comprehensive of which is Vanderbilt Psychology professor William Bernet’s compendium Parental Alienation, DSM-5, ICD-11. That book includes papers by some 70 mental health researchers around the world as well as 630 citations to scholarly articles on PAS. The undeniable fact of parental alienation is a regular feature of custody cases in courtrooms around the country and the world. Case history after case history has been recorded by researchers like Linda Gottlieb in her recent book The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Family Therapy and Collaborative Systems Approach to Amelioration.

Given this weight of scholarly evidence, how does the NOW Foundation describe PAS?

PAS is a tactical ploy used by attorneys whose clients (primarily fathers) are seeking custody of their children.

And who are these countless researchers who, over 30 + years have pioneered the study of PAS?

Proponents of PAS[are] predominantly right-wing “fathers’ rights” groups…

How does the NOW Foundation describe the huge mass of empirical research accumulated by countless researchers in all parts of the globe?

…no valid, empirical evidence exists for such a mental disorder…

The intellectual dishonesty of NOW’s piece would be astonishing were it not so common. For a long time, it’s been impossible to pretend that their sometimes hilarious misstatements of fact can be attributed to excusable error. The simple fact is that the many falsehoods in its piece on PAS are intentional. NOW has proven itself time and again to be anti-father. Its opposition to shared parenting litigation alone proves the point, and its opposition to inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 repeats the performance. And that, of course, is the point. NOW’s piece on PAS has nothing to do with the reality of PAS, its scientific basis, who it benefits, who it harms, etc. It has everything to do with NOW’s quixotic opposition to fathers’ obtaining equal rights to their children in family courts.

I say ‘quixotic’ because NOW has always championed women in the workplace. What’s obvious to most people is that the more fathers are allowed, by mothers and family courts, to care for their children, the more NOW’s dream of women’s empowerment in the workplace can become a reality. And the more fathers are marginalized in their children’s lives, the more women will find themselves marginalized at work. It can’t work any other way, but when it comes to NOW, it seems that misandry trumps even women’s power. Amazing, but true.

Feminists have always had a disturbing willingness to Just Make Stuff Up. When Gloria Steinem wanted to inveigh against anorexia and other eating disorders, she proclaimed in writing that 150,000 girls die of anorexia every year. The real figure was somewhere between 50 and 75, so Steinem was off by a factor of 2,000 to 3,000. It wasn’t a mistake, it was intentional falsification. When Susan Brownmiller wanted to defend false rape accusers, she invented the “fact” that only 2% of rape claims are fabricated. At the time there was literally nothing to support her claim, and subsequent research has shown it to be wildly inaccurate, but she made it anyway. Long after the Duke III lacrosse players had been ruled to be factually innocent of all wrongdoing following false claims of rape by Crystal Mangum, feminist Amanda Marcotte proclaimed that they had in fact “held her down” and raped her. In each case, as in countless others, there’s a desired end and, lacking actual information supporting said end, feminists Just Make Stuff Up. So NOW’s piece on PAS is part of a long tradition of feminist disinformation on a wide range of topics.

But it turns out that there are consequences to following the Just Make Stuff Up credo, and NOW’s piece on PAS is a good example. In the first place, opposition to inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 hurts mothers as much as it hurts fathers. For years PAS opponents have claimed, as NOW does, that PAS is just a trial tactic used by fathers against mothers. But that’s not true. As even a casual glance at the literature on PAS would have told them, both mothers and fathers sometimes use alienating tactics against the other parent. So when NOW argues against recognition of PAS by the APA, it’s arguing, among other things, against a mother’s ability to prove alienating behavior on the part of her ex-husband and gain for her more power in the ongoing custody battle.

Again, the irony of NOW’s opposition to mothers’ power in family courts is obvious to all – all except NOW, that is.

But if stark dishonesty were the only problem with NOW’s piece, it would merely take its place in the voluminous annals of feminist intellectual legerdemain. Sadly, bad as the piece is factually, that’s actually its best feature. That’s because every attack on PAS recognition is an attack on children. The sad truth is that some parents do alienate their children in the wake of divorce. About that, there can be no doubt; too many children, now grown up, have told their stories of how one parent or the other tried – and sometimes succeeded – at turning them against the other parent. That alienation is child abuse and, through the diligent research of countless mental health professionals, its effects on children are coming to be known. They can last a lifetime.

For example, Dr. Gabrielle Shapiro, M.D. has described her psychiatric training, her (at first) grudging acceptance of the phenomenon of PAS and “its devastating and long-lasting impact on the development and attachments of children who are victims of high-conflict divorce.”

She goes on to add that parental alienation of children “can lead to severe lifelong pathologic consequences for the child who has lost the reciprocal nurturing relationship with one of his primary attachment figures. Often these dysfunctional relationship patterns persist throughout a lifetime, despite the best of therapeutic interventions.”

So that’s what NOW is plumping for in its piece against PAS inclusion: “devastating and long-lasting impact[s]” on children and “severe, lifelong pathologic consequences” that often can’t be addressed by therapy.

Few children will thank them.

Categories: Public Distortion

Parental Alienation and the Judiciary

Medico-Legal Journal (1999) Vol.67 Part 3, 121-123

Parental Alienation and the Judiciary

Dr L F Lowenstein, MA, Dip Psych, PhD

Increasing numbers of cases are coming before the Courts where one parent feels displaced in relation to the children in the family. The syndrome, parental alienation (PAS),’ as it is now called, is not a new one, but its importance is being highlighted in the United States as well as in the UK. Judges are often uncertain as to how to treat the situation where one parent seeks to make contact with the children following an estrangement, separation, or an unusually unpleasant and vicious divorce.

There is some pressure on the Judiciary to keep the child or children with the person who has major control, usually the mother. Parental alienation however, also affects some mothers denied contact with their children who are resident with the father. On the whole, it is the male member of the partnership who suffers from the alienation situation.

In recent cases in which I have personally been involved, I had the opportunity of talking about PAS and its problems with two judges, on different occasions. The dilemma is how to deal with the case where the resident partner i.e. the alienating partner, fails to co-operate with the courts in providing adequate access for the other partner. I will recreate the general conversation, on an informal basis and hence no names can be mentioned. Interestingly, similar conversations were repeated with both judges, one male and one female, demonstrating how similar problems are often faced by the Judiciary in parental alienation cases.

Psych.: Your Honour, this is a case typical of parental alienation and I feel it is only right that the alienated parent should have contact with the child in question.

Judge: But the mother says that the child does not want any contact with the boy.

Psych.: This is because there has been a considerable amount of programming, I have discovered through my assessment, to make the child respond in this manner.

Judge: This may well be so but how do I deal with this situation when mother stubbornly refuses to allow contact of the child with the father?

Psych.: It is a difficult situation, your Honour, but the question remains: should justice be done or should it be ignored?

Judge: it is not as easy as that. I have spent time with mothers, even sitting in a cell, to try to get them to see reason to allow their former husbands to have access to a child. Sometimes this has worked while at other times, there has been a refusal. This puts me he a very awkward position since I must consider carefully, first and foremost, the children concerned and they are, after all, in the care of their mother who, if they are deprived of her, due to her being sentenced for failing to follow instructions, will lose a mother vital to their welfare.

Psych.: Again it comes down, your Honour, to considering the question of failure to comply with the Court ruling. If an ordinary criminal fails to obey instructions of the Court, some punitive action is taken. Should not some punitive action also follow when a mother, or father for that matter, refuses to accede to the ruling of the judge and the Court?

Judge: Well, I will see what I can do on this particular matter and the case before me but I still feel that it is a difficult one to settle, when one of the partners is totally opposed to contact with the child and the child in question has decided openly and before me, to refuse to have any contact with the other parent. Are you suggesting that I fine the mother in question or place her in a prison for failing to adhere to my instructions and that of the Court?

Psych.: I personally see no other alternative. It may well be that if such a threat is made, the alienating parent may, in due course, accept what has been recommended by the Court and there will be no need to take the action which you and I both feel is undesirable and may even be counter-productive.

Both judges agreed the case before them was typical of parental alienation and the difficulties they faced are only too obvious. Their first concern, and also that of myself, was the children. If the children have been “brain-washed” and “programmed” in a particular direction, this made the judge’s decision all the more difficult.

It is my view that no exception can be made for failing to adhere to the ruling of a court and that justice must be done however painful this may be. It may well be that the alienated parent should eventually gain access following a period of therapy between the psychologist and the child or children in question, to make them aware of what is happening. If older they themselves may well be able to put pressure on the alienating parent to see sense.

From the conversation, it can be seen that many judges are undoubtedly unsure how best to deal with alienating parents – this usually being the mother. Judges are often saved by the fact that fathers cease to pursue their role of wishing to play a part in their childrens’ lives. This is due to the resistance they meet from the former spouse, who has often formed a new relationship and wishes the new partner to take over the role of father. I have even known cases where the mother insisted the child call the new husband “dad” and the natural father by his first name.

Fathers who pursue both their right and their sense of responsibility through the courts are relatively few. Many opt out due to the resistance they meet from their ex-partners, the programmed child and the reluctance of judges to give them justice. This is undoubtedly due to the following:

  1. Judges are reluctant to punish and most especially incarcerate obdurate mothers who refuse to comply with a judge’s decision that they must allow access with an estranged father.

  2. Judges often are reluctant to ignore the view expressed by children that they do not wish to meet their fathers, despite the fact that such children have been “intensively programmed” to respond in this way by mothers and the mother’s relations.

  3. Judges are reluctant to advise that therapy should take place, despite the fact that when such alienation occurs, children are damaged. Such therapy is often recommended by expert witnesses such as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Such recommended periods of therapy for the child and mother are viewed by judges (with the aid of the mother’s Counsel!) as likely to damage further the children who are involved in this conflict and hostility between the parents.

Despite such reservations, judges have a moral duty to provide justice for the alienated party, this usually being the father. The threat of punishment for the alienator must be supported by punishment, including removing the child from mother’s care to a neutral place or to the alienated parent, and to use incarceration when necessary. Failure to carry out this distasteful, but necessary, action against the obdurate party would constitute a mockery of the judicial system. It is my experience as an expert witness to the Courts as a forensic, clinical psychologist, that most alienating parents, whether mothers or fathers, will obey a court order if punishment is threatened for failure to adhere to the ruling. Hence the carrying out of the various possible measures is rarely necessary.

In connection with PAS many judges have, without always being aware, adopted a double standard. They see mothers who are alienators as “victims” to be protected even when they have committed what can only be described as a form of “emotional abuse”. They have abused their powerful position by influencing the young children and turning them against the other parent. They have usurped the role of the other parent or given it to yet another partner with whom they have become associated. In this way, they have, by destroying the right of the other parent taken away that parent’s opportunity to contribute to the child’s welfare. This is at a time when we are seeking to promote the equality of the sexes. Partners should have equal power and responsibility toward their children.

PAS, when it has been proven, is a vicious form of gender opportunism or gender apartheid, which those seeking through justice can no longer ignore. Judges must stop worrying about public outcries if they remove a child from the care of a vicious programming parent who is showing their hostility toward the former partner.

I therefore suggest that the alienated parents, be they fathers or mothers, be protected. In so doing we are also protecting the children of such a relationship from a gross and calculated mis-use of power or position, that of the resident care giver.

Judges in cases of proven PAS should act as decisively as they would if judging a case of proven crime such as rape or murder. They must remove the child from the emotional damage being heaped upon it, to a safe place, where the non-alienating parent, with the help of therapy for the child, can have his influences felt by the child. At the same time, it is necessary to help the parent who has alienated the child in the first place. He or she has undoubtedly suffered from a considerable amount of pathological hostility towards the former partner.

By removing the child, or children, from the influence of the “brain-washing” alienator, the child has the opportunity of experiencing the dedication of the previously alienated parent and to develop a less biased view of that parent. Also the child can develop a positive view of both parents despite them being at war with each other.

This will do much to ensure for that child that both parents, although hostile towards one another, care and are devoted to him/her. This provides the child with a reasonable start in life, which he or she would not have had, had the influence of the alienator been allowed to continue along with a failure to have any contact with the alienated parent at the same time.

Dr L F Lowenstein
Allington Manor, Allington Lane
Fair Oak, Eastleigh
Hampshire, SO50 7DE
(01703) 692621

1. Parent Alienation Syndrome: What the legal profession should know, MLJ Vol 66 ( 1998) pt 4, 151.

Categories: Professionals

Abuse Under the Radar: Pressure, Power, and Perceptions

Abuse Under the Radar: Pressure, Power, and Perceptions: By Monika Littau Logan

April is acknowledged, by most counselors and helping professionals, around the world, as National Child Abuse Prevention Month.  It is a time to raise awareness about child abuse and neglect, as well as to create strong communities to support families and children.  There is a form of child abuse, unfortunately, that often goes unrecognized.  It is not easily detected due to the absence of physical manifestations.  The abuse is psychological in nature leading to anxiety, depression, and despair – to name just a few negative sequealae.  This under the radar type of abuse begs for recognition by counselors.  Awareness leads to education and education leads to empathy and intervention.  The abuse is known as Parental Alienation (PA).  In most situations, PA occurs in high-conflict custody cases.  Children are placed in the middle of parental wars and as a result of the conflict, children are forced to choose a “side.”  A formal definition of parental alienation, provided by Dr. Bernet, a psychiatrist from Vanderbelt University is, “when a child allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred or favored parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated or rejected parent).  The rejection does not have legitimate justification.”  Stated another way, if a child rejects a parent because the parent has physically abused the child, this is not parental alienation.

In cases of PA, the rejection of the parent is irrational.  The rejection is perpetuated and primarily maintained by favored parents; they want to turn the child against the other parent.  Some research indicates that the method is akin to inculcating prejudice.  As one example, African-Americans throughout history have been treated as less than human.  There was no justifiable reason for the overt or covert prejudice.  Instead, the hatred was taught, adopted, accepted as truth, and manifested as discrimination.  It took awareness, education, and legislation to shed light on the injustice.  In cases of PA, one parent teaches the child to disrespect and denigrate the other parent.  Minor parental flaws, which once were overlooked before the divorce, are now considered major defects.  As one illustration, an eight year old may report that she hates the other parent, because the parent smacks too loud while he eats.  When the child verbalizes her trivial reasons, she is rewarded by the favored parent.  The child may receive a new toy, or a simple hug.  If it is an adolescent, she may receive a new cell phone or a new car.

Regardless of the type of reinforcement, children’s undesirable behavior toward the rejected parent is rewarded with tenacious consistency.  When PA is left unchecked, unrecognized, and overlooked as a serious form of emotional abuse, children may refuse visitation.  As a consequence, rejected parents are cut off from their children.  They grieve the loving relationship they once had.  The children feel torn.  They are not permitted to openly love the rejected parent.  Ideally children should feel free to love both parents without suffering guilt.  Those who are unfamiliar with PA may wonder how visitation schedules could be ignored, and communication could cease to exist, especially with divorce decrees and custody plans in place.  However, in cases of PA, favored parents violate orders.  Favored parents may trash gifts that are mailed to the children, they may not be home for pick-up times, some will change their phone numbers, and in extreme cases, the parent flees the state or country.

It should be recognized not only for children, but also acknowledged for the agony that rejected parents face.  Rejected parents cope with grief, loss, shame, blame, and systemic injustice.  One study, by Dr. Amy J.L. Baker (2010), who is the director of research at The Vincent J Fontana Center for Child Protection, highlights the injustice that rejected parents endure.  Dr. Baker’s findings indicate that even when rejected parents had the resources to pursue legal action, such as to enforce previously ignored orders, favored parents did not respect the courts.  She noted that once favored parents realized they can discard legal mandates, noncompliance became the norm.  Unfortunately, this lesson is passed down to children.  Consequently, with disregard for authority modeled by the favored parent, children are raised to believe they do not have to follow rules, respect adults, or obey laws.

As studies show, rejected parents are frequently left without legal options.  They are attempting to enforce orders that should be upheld in the first place.  Surprisingly, as noted by Dr. Joan B. Kelly (2010), a significant number of favored parents, through prolonged litigation, have come to believe that non-compliance with court orders has little to no negative consequences.  Unfortunately, in some instances, rejected parents have wiped out their savings, or taken out a second mortgage, due to legal fees.  Clearly, many rejected parents simply lack funding to pursue legal action.  Given the fact that parenting plans are placed aside, and court orders are mocked, counselors should be cognizant about the “blame game.”  When a child is bullied, most do not blame the child that is the victim of bullying.  Dr. Richard Warshak, a clinical professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, an internationally renowned lecturer and authority on alienated children, points out that helping professionals should be cautious, as not to blame an already hurting parent and his or her child.  According to Dr. Warshak (2011) “In some cases, when professionals see gray they are expressing a necessary and nuanced view of family problems.  In other cases though, attributing a parent-child problem to both parents, when one parent is clearly more responsible for destructive behavior, is a misguided effort to appear balanced and avoid blame.  Unfortunately, this sometimes results in blaming the victim, and leads to inadequate remedies that prolong rather than relieve a child’s suffering.”

Common vernacular used for PA is “high-conflict” cases.  However, high-conflict does not accurately depict PA.  Certainly, there are divorces in which both parents would benefit from parenting education.  And with education, the parents will eventually co-parent amicably.  With guidance, parents learn to cooperate so that the child will not be placed in the middle of disputes.  However, through no fault of their own, rejected parents are often categorized as high-conflict.  As Dr. Warshak notes, the system often labels these parents as a “high-conflict couple,” and assumes that both contribute equally to their disputes.  Common advice is to inform parents to stop fighting.  This assumes that it is equally within each parent’s power to cease fire.  Studies indicate it does not always take two to tango.  Jaffee, Ashbourne, & Mamo (2010) describes how favored parents may not always play fair, “A minority of parents who suffer from personality and mental disorders may ignore the court and spend their waking hours finding ways to exhaust the other parent emotionally and financially.”  These authors’ findings are consistent with other research.  It is clear; some favored parents blatantly ignore court orders.  The concept that one parent may be at fault, goes against our balanced, attempting to remain objective, therapeutic grain.  If one parent ignores the court, teaches his or her child to disrespect and demean the other parent, one could infer that the rejected parent require an empathetic ear.  As counselors, beneficence is an ethical imperative.  To help off-set further harm requires an insightful and historical understanding of alienating nuances.

Parental Alienation was depicted in the literature as early as 1949 by Wilhelm Reich; he wrote Character Analysis.  Reich explained that some divorced parents enact revenge, on their ex-partners, by depriving them of a relationship with their children.  In order to alienate the child from the partner, lies are told without any reality to the statements .Unfortunately, for rejected parents and their children, PA is often surrounded by controversy.  According to literature, the controversy is multifaceted.  Some posit the phenomenon was “invented.”  Forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner (1985) coined and defined the term, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).  While Dr. Gardner coined the term, he did not invent this horrific form of abuse.  To claim that he invented parental alienation is comparable to stating Freud invented anxiety.  Dr. Gardner, observed children’s behavioral patterns, which resulted in eight manifestations.  Depending on the severity of alienation, behaviors of PAS can be mild, moderate, or severe.  He postulated that PAS is a result of one parent indoctrinating his or her child.  Consequently, the child contributes by vilifying his or her rejected parent.  As some dislike the medical model, the word syndrome also leads to debate.  Furthermore, Dr. Gardner observed the phenomenon during the tender years presumption.  Thus, it was believed that mothers were favored parents, while fathers were rejected parents.  Sadly, in some circles, this contributed to gender wars.  The literature is clear that an alienated parent can be male or female, as alienation is indiscriminate.

Parental alienation has also been scrutinized for being simplistic as it relates to causality.  Dr. Gardner suggested that target parents are innocent victims.  It is easy to believe the common phrase: where there is smoke, there must be fire.  That is, if a child rejects a parent some may conclude that the parent must have done something to deserve rejection.  Once again, we should remember the bullied child or poor treatment of targeted ethnic groups.  Certainly, this does not mean rejected parents do not contribute in some manner, but it suggests their role is unequal.

Logically, if the phenomenon is denied and dismissed as worthy of clinical intervention, how can parents learn helpful responses?  Without help, rejected parents contribute such as: overreacting, under reacting, or by counter rejecting.  Dr. Gardner, in a balanced view, suggested that the rejected parent may have certain qualities that irritated, or temporarily alienated the child, but the parent does not deserve ongoing scorn, rejection, and in some cases to never see the parent again.  The animosity goes beyond what might be expected from minor parental weakness.  Vassiliou & Cartwright (2001) reported that rejected parents feel hopeless and helpless.  In a sum, rejected parents believe the situation is beyond control.  Unquestionably, rejected parents require support for being irrationally alienated.  They also need guidance in dealing with their children’s defiant behavior, which is perpetuated and rewarded by favored parents.  Rejected parents, who have lost all contact with their children, require support in dealing with such an enormous loss.

Obviously, it is vital to distinguish indisputable abuse and neglect from parental alienation.  Certainly, physical abuse is detestable and unacceptable.  Most would agree that emotional abuse should also be unacceptable.  A child or adolescent should not be taught to make false allegations, hoping for the possibility that his or her parent may “win” in court.  Children should not be placed in the middle, nor do they need to hear constant denigrating remarks.  A child should not be forced to choose a “side”.  It should raise a red flag, when a five-year old parrots adult language using vocabulary such as alimony, or child support.  A red flag should also go up, when an eight year old proudly reports, “We are going to court to obtain full custody.”  Thankfully, progress has been made in providing awareness and education.  Currently, Parental Alienation has over 600 citations throughout the literature.  Progress has also been made in countries such as Brazil, where alienating behaviors are now illegal.  April 25th is Parental Alienation Awareness Day.  Last year Poland, Germany, Sweden, Canada, and the United States, just to name a few, participated on this day to help raise awareness.  As counselors, we should help eradicate not only physical abuse, but we should also aid in shedding light on the undetected scars that result from emotional abuse.

Recognizing Parental Alienation: The Therapeutic Role

Counselors play a pivotal role in alleviating pain that results from irrational alienation.  As a profession, we are at the forefront, when parents seek help, especially given the divorce rate.  Regardless if one is in private practice, or works in an agency setting, it is likely that one will be faced with alienated child, alienated adolescent, favored parent, or rejected parent.  Armed with empirical findings, counselors can help offset parental alienation before a relationship is permanently severed.  The first role of the counselor is to pierce through powerful polarities.  Stated another way, the media, and advocacy groups have erroneously portrayed that if one recognizes parental alienation, as a serious form of emotional abuse, they are simultaneously denying intimate partner abuse and child abuse.  This polarity, for the CBT adherents, may ring an all too familiar bell – the sound of black and white thinking.
To acknowledge parental alienation, as a form of coercive control, with the victim as an innocent child, does not mean that one is denying the reality of child abuse or domestic violence.

In 2010, Fidler & Bala discussed narrow and polarizing perspectives.  They indicated the inflexible all or none thinking, observed by alienated children and their parents, can also be seen in helping professionals.  Another concern, one that often produces professional discord, is that PA is not accepted in the DSM-IV-TR.  However, we should be aware of the fact that just because a disorder or phenomenon is not listed in the DSM, does not mean the problem is not real.  One commonly cited example, among many, is Gille de la Tourette.  It was first described in 1885; ninety-five years later, it was accepted into the DSM.

Working with Children

Detecting signs of parental alienation is another therapeutic endeavor.  As noted by Baker & Andre (2008), the counselor can aid in putting a halt to additional deterioration of the parent-child relationship.  It is vital to determine if there has been a history of violence and to rule out bona fide abuse and neglect.  Unfortunately, there are not any widely accepted “parental alienation tests”.  The authors recommend that counselors can discriminate among possible sources for the rejection by using Dr. Gardner’s eight behavioral manifestations.  The first, as Dr. Gardner described, is what is known as a campaign of denigration.  A child, seemingly overnight, will claim to hate and/or fear a once loved parent.  Secondly, weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the depreciation of the targeted parent are offered, convincingly too, by the child.  As an illustration, a child will reject Mom or Dad, offering irrational, yet emotionally charged reasons, such as the parent folds the laundry wrong or burnt the macaroni and cheese.  Third; the child will adopt a rigid lack of ambivalence.  This is a key indicator that counselors should know.  Rather than viewing both parents, as fallible human beings, the rejected parent is viewed with contempt, while the favored parent is viewed in an angelic light.  Fourth, is known as the “Independent thinker phenomenon.  Clearly, independent thought is to be prized, but in PA situations the child’s head has been inserted with falsehoods.  The child asserts that his or her hatred has nothing to do with the other parent.  On the contrary, alienated children will insist that the idea is by their own accord.  Fifth, is an absence of guilt.  Alienated children, due to negative input by the favored parent, behave guilt free.  They act entitled, are defiant, and may exhibit cruel behavior.  Sixth is known as,  reflexive support for the favored parent.  They have no interest nor are they willing to consider the rejected parents thoughts or wishes.  This is the time in which rejected parents wonder why logic does not work.  It appears nothing they do or say will change their child’s distorted thinking.  The seventh manifestation is known as borrowed scenarios.  Children often will adopt words and concepts they cannot define.  As mentioned earlier, counselors should take note when a child uses adult-like language.  The last manifestation is when hatred spreads; the child may not only claim to hate the rejected parent, but they may also report they no longer love grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles, or even the family pet.  In conjunction to Dr. Gardner’s eight manifestations, there are three components that are essential in detecting parental alienation.

In identifying Parental Alienation, Dr. Warshak (2003) exposes three fundamental elements.  First, counselors should establish if the rejection or denigration is persistent.  That is, is the rejection by a parent an occasional episode, or has it turned into a hate campaign.  As an example, did the parent’s separation occur six months ago, or six years ago?  Second, the counselors are faced with the question: is the rejection rational?  Is alienation due to the rejected parent’s behavior?  Third, the rejection must be in part, a result of the favored parent’s influence.  Dr. Warshak points out that at times, some who are critical of the child’s rejection, focus only on the first element.  According to Dr. Warshak, the phenomenon is at work when all three elements are present.  Counselors will be in a better position when they are considering parental alienation, if they keep the three elements in mind.  Shortly after parents separate, an occasional negative remark by an ex-spouse is expected.  However, daily doses of parental poisoning within an ear shot of a child, is another concern.

While the literature varies in regards to uniform testing and adopting Dr. Gardner’s eight manifestations, there is a consensus to the signs of alienation.  For starters, alienated children display all-or-nothing thinking.  They rewrite history, and ignore and/or deny evidence placed before them.  As an example, when shown a picture of a Disneyland vacation with the rejected parent, a picture in which the child and parent are smiling, the child will insist that they were only pretending to have a good time.  Another indication is when the child’s descriptions for the rejection sounds more like scripted lines.  Counselors should be attuned to adult language; language that is above age expected vocabulary.  This is similar to Dr. Gardner’s description of borrowed scenarios.  Alienated children not only utilize grown-up vocabulary, but they are rude, disrespectful, or even violent – without guilt.  As a caveat, their defiant behavior does not extended to all settings; it is aimed directly at the rejected parent.  Another sign is the child’s incongruence between words and affect.  As counselors, we are on the look-out for clients that are teary-eyed, yet insist they are happy.  The same goes for the alienated child due to parental brainwashing.

An additional way to think about parental alienation, offered by Baker & Andre (2008), is the counselor may ask: do I believe that the child is being manipulated by one parent to reject the other parent, who is not abusive or so inadequate, as to deserve the child’s rejection? By posing this question, the counselor comes back to the three elements indicated by Dr. Warshak.  Some goals for counseling include, addressing divorce related stress and correcting the child’s distorted view of his or her rejected parent.  Studies indicate that in mild and moderate cases of alienation, a family systems approach is best suited.  In severe cases, such as favored parents who defy court orders and refuse counseling, may require one to pursue additional court intervention.  In severe cases, research indicates that temporarily suspending contact with the favored parent may be necessary.  Ideally, court orders should be enforced; unfortunately, as counselors are aware, this is not always the case.

Working with Rejected Parents: Therapeutic Options

Counselors can best serve rejected parents by validating their experiences, providing psycho-educational materials, teaching coping techniques, and bibliotherapy.  Rejected parents may run the gamut from being treated with contempt, while others may not have had any contact with their child for years.  Working with rejected parents brings counselors back to the basics – empathy.  Rejected parents require an empathic ear.  Emotions vary too; the counselor should be cognizant that rejected parents may display anger, as they are frequently blamed for their child’s rejection.  As Dr. Warshak points out, some suggest these parents are perpetrators of some type of behavior that warrants their child’s fear, hatred, or both.  He eloquently captures the source of their injustice, “the position that irrational alienation does not exist essentially means that all rejected parents deserve what they get.”  In the past, a common suggestion for rejected parents was to “wait it out.”  A few findings have suggested that PA is an expected reaction to divorce.  Or, in other instances, it is portrayed that alienation is no cause for concern, because children “outgrow” parental alienation.  Rejected parents who are waiting for time to heal all wounds, will lose years that cannot be replaced.

One qualitative study, by Dr. Amy Baker (2007), indicates that adults who were alienated as children lost significant time with their rejected parents.  More than half of the participants in this study had relationships that were severed 22 years or more.  All participants lost at minimum, six years.  One can conclude that another role of the counselor is to offer hope.  Many rejected parents may develop a sense of learned helplessness.  In severe cases, all attempts to stop alienation have been met with dismal failure.  As described by Fidler & Bala (2010), some favored parents may be malicious, vindictive, feel above the law, and be deliberate in their actions.  Unquestionably, trying to co-parent with someone who is unwilling to co-parent, contributes to a great deal of difficulty.  Not only may rejected parents become angry, but they may also display anxiety and depression.  Leona Kopetski (1998), who was part of an evaluation team, enlightens counselors, given the dynamics, that uncontrollable factors should be considered.  She describes that rejected parents have more obvious symptoms of psychological distress than favored parents.  She stated, “If psychological health is defined as the absence of internal distress or internal conflict, the favored parent appears healthier; however, this appearance is misleading.”  As rejected parents are in distress, it is wise for counselors to consider the stressful context of PA.  Coming to mind is the famous quote by Victor Frankl, “an abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior.”  While PA is not the norm of divorcing families, counselors should reflect that rejected parents are anxious to restore strained or broken relationships.

Counselors can make a profound difference for rejected parents by offering sound educational materials in conjunction with modeling parenting techniques for rejecting children.  Some parents may reinforce alienation, as they overreact to provocative behavior.  Another manner in which Counselors can assist is by sharing knowledge.  For example, if a rejected parent in return, rejects his or her child, he or she may risk further alienating the child.  Dr. Warshak (2010), identified that rejected parents may vacillate between doing too much and doing too little.  Other studies show that as rejected parents grow frustrated, they may ironically act like their alienated child.  Fidler & Bala (2010) emphasize an important point; while at times parental responses are less than desirable, the counselor should keep in mind, “few have had the benefit of being adequately prepared in advance to deal constructively with at least some of the extreme behaviors that is manifested by the alienated child.”

Other rejected parents, after years of attempting to cope, may become exhausted, withdraw, and simply throw in the towel.  Literature indicates, that earlier recommendations to rejected parents, was to give the child space.  That is, if the child refused to see Mom or Dad, let it be.  Unfortunately, decades later, this approach failed.  A review of the current standards reveals, that by giving an alienated child space, the rejected parent, although unintentionally, may strengthen the allegations made by the other parent.  As an example, if the child continues to refuse visitation, the rejected parent may become weary of “forcing” the child to spend time with him or her.  However, this backfires.  It provides ammunition for the favored parent to solidify his or her scheming antics, “See, your mom/dad does not care if you spend time with him or her.”  Some rejected parents self-initiate a cut-off, as they believe nothing they do or say will lead to reconciliation.  Thus, counselors can not only offer hope for the rejected parent, but they can also suggest that the behavior of their child is not personal.  The favored parent, especially in severe cases, tries to wear down the rejected parent.  Counselors should recognize this sad, but true reality.  The goal for the counselor is to explore areas of strength and potential resources.  The client needs to gain a sense of power and control.  In a sum, counselors’ can aid rejected parents in maintaining their internal compass, so that their direction will not be set off course.

Unfortunately, relationships may become permanently severed.  This may occur from the child, with the help of the favored parent, or the cut-off may come from the adult.  As noted by Dr. Warshak (2010), some loving and well-intended parents may let go for several reasons.  One reason, as previously mentioned, is that some parents may have exhausted all legal options, which in turn, may deplete financial resources.  A second consideration is when a rejected parent’s ex-spouse is disturbed and that continuing legal proceedings may provoke him or her to take violent action.  In cases where all ties have been severed, the counselor should consider that while the rejected parent’s child is not deceased, it is an ambiguous loss.  There is no closure.

Another option suggested by Dr. Baker (2006), when working with rejected parents, is to incorporate bibliotherapy.  Many counselors are familiar with suggesting self-help books or other readings.  Study after study reveals that in severe cases, rejected parents feel powerless to prevent alienation and that they feel alone.  Additionally, research indicates they often see themselves as doubly victimized.  Not only are they dealing with disbelief of their situation, but they also perceive they are misunderstood.  They may think others blame them for their child’s rejection.  Rejected parents may find solace by reading books about other rejected parents, as they realize they are not alone.  For  constructivists, one could view rejected parent’s stories as a thick description.  Dr. Baker (2006) explains that reading others accounts promote empowerment and releases feelings of rage that accompanies being the victim of injustice.  Others stories also allows a relational aspect, similar to groups, offering the reader a chance to step into the shoes of another.  The client may identify, through the descriptions, what role, if any, they have played.  According to Baker (2006), rejected parents may discover they have been passive, or that they needed to initiate legal proceedings.  Furthermore, the use of bibliotherapy may enhance therapeutic discussions, as different possibilities for the future may surface – a result of the narratives.  Encouragement and enlightenment may be found, especially by reading those who have overcome tremendous hardships.  Reading other rejected parents surreal ordeals may offset heartache, helplessness, and hopelessness.

Working with Favored Parents: Roles and Roadblocks

Working with favored parents can be an obstacle.  Throughout the literature, many discussions ensue regarding if the favored parent’s tactics are intentional, or unintentional.  Dr. Darnall (1998) describes various levels that favored parents may act upon.  One designation is known as the naïve parent, this category includes favored parents who make an occasional remark, or participate in some alienating behavior.  However, naïve parents are most likely to benefit from parenting education, or voluntarily attend therapy.  It is vital, that counselors reflect upon the three elements that must be present for parental alienation to exist.  In cases of PA, the remarks are not occasional, but are chronic.  When working with the naïve parent, counselors can offer psycho-educational materials, work on coping with divorce, co-parenting, and anger management.  This group is the most receptive to the harmful effects of badmouthing.  Clearly, an occasional remark differs from a consistent litany of parental put-downs.  Another group, described by Darnall (1998), is those who are obsessed and are set out to purposely destroy the relationship with the other parent.  This group is most likely to be court mandated.  They will be resistant, especially if the goal is to heal the damaged parent-child relationship.  Studies indicate this group behaves as if they are above the law.  In their view, court orders are worthless – mandates apply to everyone else, but not to them.

Counselors too, should be on the look-out for the methods used to turn a child against the other parent.  Some will badmouth the other parent within an earshot of a child.  The denigration is constant and they refuse to stop, even when informed badmouthing is harmful.  Sadly, they may tell their child that the other parent does not love them, or does not want to see them.  Keep in mind, this group is less likely to follow court orders; consequently, they may hide-out when it is time for the rejected parent to spend time with their child.  The outcome of visitation interference is that the child will “see” that the other parent is not around.  In their eyes, the lies of the favored parent are true, after all they did not “see” Mom or Dad.  This provides the opportunity for the favored parent to fill the child’s head full of lies.  Sure, object permanence is achieved; although out-of-sight does not equate to out-of-mind.  Out-of-sight, will lead the child to believe, what is not right – that the other parent does not love them, does not want them, or perhaps, even hates them.  In conjunction to damaging non-stop badmouthing, the situation can worsen.  Rejected parents are known to trash gifts and intercept mail.  Some too, flee the state or country.

Literature indicates favored parents may struggle in accepting their divorce.  They use the child as a confidant and a friend.  In order for the child to cope with loyalty demands, they often have no other choice than to claim that they hate Mom or Dad too.  If the child still has contact, they may be instructed to trash dinner while at the rejected parent’s home.  Some may destroy property, or steal – just to name a few.  Research also reveals that favored parents may have personality disorders.  What approach then, should a counselor take when working with favored parents?  According to Dr. Rand (1997), therapy with favored parents, can possibly make the situation worse.  As counselors, the therapeutic alliance is paramount.  However, as a caveat, favored parents utilize the very nature of therapy to their advantage.  As they have sociopathic tendencies, they might try to sway the therapist to his or her “side.”  Many favored parents will not attend, or will terminate early.  The counselor should keep in mind, for those who attend, they desire to find additional allies to gain support for their hatred.

Dr. Warshak (2010) expanded upon other findings, “family therapy, co-parenting counseling, parent education, and cognitive behavioral therapy are insufficient to modify the complex behavior of alienating parents who are unable to think beyond their own needs…”  He goes on to note that psychoanalytic oriented treatment is the best approach to help these parents, but as this treatment is lengthy, by the time the parent improves their behavior, the children may be grown and have already endured years of psychic suffering.

Dr. Warshak summarizes a helpful perspective when counseling alienated children and rejected parents, “restoration does not preclude prevention.”  As counselors, we must first and foremost recognize parental alienation as a serious form of abuse.  Any society’s standard of care regarding abused children, must be to prioritize protecting them from further abuse.  Every counselor can aid in protecting children from further emotional abuse through awareness of parental alienating behaviors, and recognizing children’s irrational rejection.

To participate in raising awareness, visit the Parental Alienation Awareness Organization.

Categories: Professionals
%d bloggers like this:


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Asiasoft Passport @iBox
@iBox Information
Asiasoft Passport Login ID
National ID
Registered Email Address
* All replies will be sent to this email address.
Date and Time Incident Occurred Pick a date
Reference Link
Description of the incident

Enter code show above:
* Please NOTE. IP address will be captured to prevent abuse.
Are you sure you want to continue?

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf