Chapter 7 Parental Alienation

CHAPTER 7

CONTACT DIFFICULTIES AND PARENTAL ALIENATION A. OVERVIEW This chapter reviews many of the issues relating to contact difficulties, which includes parental alienation. The various types of contact difficulties are described here. This chapter also describes the characteristics of the alienating parent, the target parent, and the child. Recommendations are offered to the various professions on how to manage these difficult cases more effectively. The fact that many divorcing clients become alienated from their lawyers will also be explored. This discussion will focus especially on lawyers and what they can do to improve that situation. However, the court, child welfare workers, custody assessors, psychotherapists, and other professionals will also be discussed. Some observations will be made regarding the benefits of using a multi-disciplinary approach. Contact difficulties and parental alienation are issues which have caused much confusion and difficulty in the field of family law as well as for many custody assessors, psychotherapists, and child protection agencies. A major concern in these matters is that the child is scarred by these difficulties, and will carry these scars into adulthood. It is very important for professionals who are involved with divorce to understand parental alienation and the various aspects of contact difficulties. This will assist the professionals to clarify whether allegations of abuse are valid in a particular case or whether there is an issue relating to contact difficulties or parental alienation in any given case. However, it may be difficult for the courts to gain a clear perspective in such situations unless the abuse or alienating behaviour is out in the open and fairly intense, rather than hidden and veiled as occurs in a great many cases. Parental alienation is often defined as one parent purposely trying to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent, with the child taking the side of the alienating parent. A more recent definition explores a broader range of alienation, including that which is done out of occasional anger by a parent, and may even be unintentional. Although many professionals believe parental alienation to be rare, this broader range of alienation occurs in many cases which are fought out in court. A still broader concept is that of contact difficulties, in which a child refuses contact with the access parent for a broad range of reasons. A sub-theme in this chapter is the relationship between the client and the professionals involved in the case. Individuals going through the breakdown of a relationship are, in the initial stages, very blaming of the other partner and often take little or no responsibility for the difficulties. Also, when they are dissatisfied with their work with a professional, such as a lawyer, they tend to act in the same way toward them as they do

toward their spouse: they blame the professional and take no responsibility for the difficulties. They may become alienated from the lawyer, just as they became alienated from their partner. This is not an uncommon difficulty. As noted earlier, research shows that 50% of matrimonial clients become dissatisfied with their lawyers. I will discuss potential causes for these difficulties, and make recommendations to help resolve them.

B. CONTACT DIFFICULTIES Some of the literature states that the concept of “contact difficulties” is preferable to “parental alienation syndrome” for a number of reasons although the idea of “parental alienation” is acceptable in some of those cases. A recent review of the two concepts and of the research literature in this area stated, “The term contact difficulties encompasses more than just alienation and alienating behaviours; rather it represents any negative change in the child-parent relationship following divorce.” (Kelly and Johnston, 2001). The issues relating to contact difficulties are more complex than those considered by the concept of parental alienation. The following areas need to be taken into consideration: the child, the relationship between the parents, the parents’ personalities, extended family difficulties, a new spouse or partner, financial issues, impact of litigation, etc. Janet Johnston proposed that the child’s contribution to the family difficulties is also very important to consider. Rather than viewing the issues as being personality or behavioural difficulties, the idea is that the interactional patterns are also crucial considerations (Johnston, 1993b: Kelly and Johnston, 2001). Johnston identified six reasons why a child might refuse to visit a parent: •

Fear about leaving their primary attachment figure

•

The child may align with one parent to resolve painful loyalty conflicts which results from the parents’ conflict

•

The child may take sides as a form of defense in reaction to long-term conflict between the parents

•

The child may be emotionally over-involved with the residential parent

•

Prior exposure to emotional or physical abuse between parents

•

Counter-rejection of a parent who has rejected the child

In comparison to a child having contact difficulties, Kelly and Johnston clarified their view of an alienated child in 2001 by stating that such a child “… expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.” Their model is on a continuum from the child having a healthy relationship with both parents to parental alienation.

According to Kelly and Johnston, there are four factors that increase the likelihood of alienation: •

Triangulation of a child in parental conflict

•

Separation experienced by the child as being very humiliating

•

Highly conflictual divorce and legal process

•

Conscious and unconscious input from new partners, extended family and professionals

These authors agree with the parental alienation concept that the alienating parent has very negative views toward the target parent and that the child does not need to have contact with that parent. The target parent is often viewed as being dangerous to the child and as having had little positive interaction with the child in the past. Alienating parents also state that the child should have the right to make the decisions regarding contact with the target parent. Kelly and Johnston also agree with the parental alienation view expressed earlier that the target parent’s capacity to look after the child is in the normal range. Stolz and Ney (2002) also focus on alienation although they prefer to focus on the issue of resistance rather than on the individuals because that puts more emphasis on the relationships. Their view is that if the divorce process were dealt with in a less adversarial manner, there would be less resistance to visitation. In terms of contact difficulties, the research strongly suggests that the courts should impose a very clear parenting plan for families in which there is high conflict. Although other models have been developed for parenting plans with high conflict families (Brandt, 1998; Gilmour, 2004); Stewart (2001) has proposed the following recommendations for these situations: •

Minimal or no contact between parents

•

Extensive detail with little flexibility left to parents

•

Regular routines for children

•

A primary parent to make the main decisions

•

Access may be limited or supervised

•

The parents to make use of a ‘communication book’ rather than communicate directly

•

Making use of neutral places for transfer of the children

The discussion of contact difficulties here was partly based on the article by Freeman and Freeman (2003).

C. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY DYNAMICS IN PARENTAL ALIENATION Richard Gardner first developed the concept of parental alienation syndrome as “a disturbance in which children are preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.” In his revised book in 1998, (Parental Alienation Syndrome, 2nd Ed., (Gardner, 1998), he went on to write: “It results from a combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrination and the child’s own contribution to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect are present, the child’s animosity may be justified, and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.” Other writers add that parental alienation also occurs when a parent keeps harping to the child about the other parent’s imperfections. In my experience, it sometimes happens that both parents have alienating behaviour and both feel victimized by the other parent, with neither taking responsibility for being part of the problem. Parental alienation is most likely to occur in that segment of the divorcing population which has been defined by Constance Ahrons in “The Good Divorce” (Ahrons, 1994) as “fiery foes”. This group makes up 25% of the divorcing population, and it is they who are most likely to hire lawyers to fight over custody. It is in these families that the need to protect the children and the need to seek revenge against the other parent are most likely to be mixed together and confused with each other, often without the parents being aware that their desire to protect their child is also mixed with a need for revenge. For example, I have been involved in some cases in which the alienating parent states that the target parent was never abusive during the marriage, but can no longer be trusted with the child after having gotten angry at the alienating parent a couple of times over the course of the breakdown of the relationship and is now seen as being emotionally unstable. They may do this without understanding that anger is a normal occurrence during the emotional process of divorce. On the other hand, it may be based on a conscious or unconscious wish to punish the target parent through the child for leaving the relationship. In this chapter, I will list a number of factors that can be reviewed by professionals and parents to assist them to determine whether parental alienation is a factor in a particular case. I will focus first on the “alienating parent”, then on the child, and finally on the “target” parent. A number of factors need to be present, including the child’s active participation, for parental alienation syndrome to exist. Generally, the more factors fit a particular case, the greater the level of the parental alienation. A case of parental alienation can be defined as being mild, moderate, or severe depending of the number of factors involved and on their intensity.

i.

The Alienating Parent

Following are some of the main characteristics of an alienating parent. Perceptions and emotions: a. Distorts reality in terms of seeing risk to the child where none exists or exaggerates minor problems. b. Believes the child is better off without contact with the other parent. c. Labels the other parent’s attempts at communication as harassment. d. Is usually not aware of the negative impact of the alienating behaviour on the child. Behaviours: a. Exaggerates or invents incidents of being abused by the target parent, and discusses these with the child. b. Tells the child that he or she is unsafe with the target parent. c. Makes negative comments to the child about the other parent, such as saying the other parent does not love the child. d. Denies phone contact or refuses to give the child presents or letters sent by the other parent. e. Cancels visits, giving excuses such as: the child is sick when it is not true or the illness is minor. f. Does not allow the target parent access to information. g. Blames the target parent, in the child’s presence, for not providing child support or for other perceived faults. h. Makes false statements about the other parent. i.

Creates temptations for the child that interfere with parenting time.

j.

May try to move in order to another location so as to limit access to the target parent.

In my experience, many alienators have been abused or neglected in their own childhood and unconsciously project their unresolved past grievances onto the current situation. In a book on the topic entitled “Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children from Parental Alienation”, Douglas Darnall (Darnall, 1998) categorized alienators into three groups:

•

The naive alienator, who unintentionally says or does things about the other parent which are alienating, feels bad about it, and may try to make amends after becoming aware of the problem.

•

The active alienator means well and believes the child should have a relationship with the other parent but lashes out at the parent in front of the child.

•

The obsessed alienator is on an intentional and active campaign to destroy the relationship between the child and the target parent, and is absolutely certain of the validity of his or her cause.

Naïve and active alienators are more likely to accept help for the problem than is the third group. Darnall’s definition, which is broader than Gardner’s, is important for professionals to keep in mind because it helps to differentiate between types of alienators, thus allowing for different types of intervention to suit the case. Based on Gardner’s definition, the alienating parent forms an alliance with the child against the other parent. This factor is not part of Darnall’s definition. In his definition, the child could become alienated from one parent when the other parent does not wish that to occur. Both definitions are useful, although the list of characteristics listed above are based on Gardner’s definition. ii. The Child For parental alienation to occur, according to Gardner’s definition, there must be alienating behaviour on the part of one parent with the child fully supporting that parent, acting as advocate and spokesperson for that parent’s anger. The child must have awareness, whether consciously or not, of the parent’s hatred toward the target parent. If we use concepts from the field of family therapy, we can say that the child has an alliance with one parent and is split off from the other, the target parent. The split between the target parent and child mirrors the split between the parents. However, these are relationship issues whereas the concept of parental alienation focuses on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours. Gardner’s and Darnall’s definitions of the child are very similar. For example, they agree that the child hates the other parent. I have found, in my work that this is not always true. I have seen cases in which the children put on an appearance of hating the target parent out of loyalty to the alienating parent. Once they grow up and leave home, this type of child is more likely to reconnect positively with the target parent. In addition to hating the target parent, these children: a.

Hate the target parent for reasons which are often trivial.

b.

Feel no guilt for their anger or for avoiding the other parent.

c.

Use behaviours which may look rehearsed - parroting statements made by the alienating parent. Such statements may be beyond the child’s age level and understanding.

d.

May deny having any memory of positive experiences with the target parent during the visits, or at any time in the past.

e.

The child often refuses to speak to the target parent, and states that it is their decision to hate the target parent or refuse visits, and deny that it has anything to do with the alienating parent.

f.

Often refuse to give reasons for not wanting to see the other parent.

g.

Are not prepared to forgive the target parent for their imperfections, large or small.

As research has shown, it is those children who are most caught in the middle between their parents who experience the greatest emotional and behavioural difficulties after the divorce. For them, being caught in the middle is more harmful than the divorce itself (Buchanon, Maccoby, and Dorbush, 1994). iii. The Target Parent The target parent, out of frustration, often gives up on attempting to contact the child, thus confirming both the child’s and the alienating parent’s views about the target parent that they do not really care about the child. The target parent’s withdrawal may fluctuate with irritation or anger expressed directly to the child, if the opportunity arises, for not wanting to have contact with the parent, thus alienating the child further. These ups and downs could result in the judge viewing the target parent as being the problem, and making a judgment accordingly, thus rewarding the alienating parent for their inappropriate behaviour. A crucial factor to consider is whether there are valid reasons for the child refusal to visit the other home. A child claiming that the target parent’s home is not much fun, for example, is not a valid reason for alienating behaviour. A parent who allows the child to avoid visits for such reasons is, whether intending to do so or not, reinforcing the alienation on the part of the child. If we relate parental alienation with the emotional process of divorce, the naive alienator is more likely to have fewer negative feelings and a more positive intention toward their ex-spouse. Some of their remaining negative emotions may impact what they say to the child. In my experience, there is no connection between intensity of anger on the part of a parent and parental alienation. In other words, a parent may be very upset and the child is not alienated whereas, in another case, a parent may no longer have intense feelings but the child is very alienated. However, the active alienator is likely to become angry at times and to make angry statements either directly to the child, or in their presence. The obsessed alienator is fully stuck in the anger stage, and may continue being stuck there for years if not decades to come. iv. Power Issues and Parental Alienation Since the issue of violence and sexual abuse has been discussed elsewhere in this manual, I will mention it only briefly in this context. All professionals involved in a case

must take allegations of abuse seriously. Although a great deal could be written about this matter, only a couple of points will be made here. It is important to determine, for example, whether either parent has previously abused or neglected the child, or is currently doing so. An abusive parent is very likely to minimize or deny any abuse. On the other hand, a parent who alienates, and perhaps the child as well, is likely to exaggerate abusiveness on the part of the other parent or make things up. The child who is alienating is more likely to blow things out of proportion in terms of abuse toward the target parent, whereas a child who is being abused by the alienating parent may deny any problems in this home or make allegations and later withdraw them. Another power factor that is often inappropriately used in the divorce process is money. This factor can play a major role in parental alienation. In cases of parental alienation, the custodial parent’s denial of access may result in the other parent avoiding making support payments. On the other hand, a non-alienating parent is also more likely to deny access if support payments are not being made. Most people who write about parental alienation are from the helping professions, and they focus only on personal and interpersonal issues - thus missing half of the equation. This article is not the right forum to discuss the issue of money in depth. Suffice it to say that it is often men who use money as a point of power and it is often women who use the children as a point of power. This reflects the common situation after separation - the woman often has less income, although she has the children. Parents use the tools they have at their disposal to get back at the other spouse: money, children, child protection services, the police, and the legal system.

D. CRITIQUE OF THE CONCEPT OF PARENTAL ALIENATION A number of critiques have been written about parental alienation syndrome and much of this has been summarized by Turkat (2002). The reader should be aware that there is a difference between the concept of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. Most writers have issue with the concept of the syndrome but not with parental alienation. Some of these points are that •

Parental alienation syndrome does not fit within DSMV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual) which is a list of psychological diagnoses.

•

Research regarding parental alienation is insufficient to confirm the existence of parental alienation syndrome at this time

•

The concept of contact difficulties, described earlier in this chapter, is thought by some writers to be more useful (i.e., Freeman and Freeman, 2003).

There is considerable debate in the professional literature as to which view is the most useful to take, in the best interests of the child – that of contact difficulties or parental alienation.

There is also disagreement in the literature as to management strategies when allegations have been made or regarding what the contact plan should be when the allegations ob abuse have been confirmed. In other words, there is no agreement between professionals on what to recommend to the courts when parental alienation or abuse is involved. This needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, preferably in custody / access assessments because of the complexity of the issues and because abuse and parental alienation are often hidden. This makes it difficult for judges to determine how to proceed when there are allegations and counter-allegations on both sides.

E.

VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF CONTACT DIFFICULTIES AND PARENTAL ALIENATION

In my experience, many families have difficulties which are similar to contact difficulties and parental alienation but do not quite fit those categories. Even if they do not exactly fit, they are nonetheless important for professionals to consider. This brief section will explore a number of these variations. For example, I have been involved with many cases in which a child tells both parents he would prefer to live with them and not the other parent, in an attempt to be loved by or to create the illusion of loyalty to both parents. In the more extreme cases of this nature, the child tells both parents about problems in the other home, which are exaggerated or untrue. Both parents, on hearing these allegations, take steps to protect the child from the other parent, such as preventing access, making reports to child protection agencies or the police, or taking the matter to court. Both parents may try to reduce or stop the connection between the child and the other parent, and using the authorities and various professionals to accomplish that goal. This situation, in which both parents respond appropriately to the allegations by the child against both homes results in the child becoming extremely powerful, to his or her own detriment. The child’s behaviour creates chaos in both homes as a result of child protection workers, the courts, and other authorities taking steps to limit their power as parents ‘in the best interests of the child’. Various professionals, such as therapists, physicians, or lawyers, get involved over time, and may become drawn into the family’s negative patterns, thus becoming ineffective or, unintentionally, adding to the problems. This type of situation is far more destructive to all concerned than parental alienation because it greatly increases the difficulties in both homes and leaves the child with no stability and security in either home. In another variation on the theme of parental alienation, the child may act in a very alienating manner toward one parent even though neither parent attempts to be alienating. This often occurs because a parent was previously angry and may have been somewhat alienating at the time. The child does not realize that there has been an improvement in the parent’s attitude and keeps acting based on the earlier situation. I have assessed a number of cases of this type, in which the target parent blames the other parent for the child’s behaviour, when it is no longer valid to do so. In some cases, a child will hate the target parent for years as a result of seeing the other parent hurt - such as having lost a business, having been beaten up or having made a suicide attempt during the separation process.

In another scenario, some children become alienated toward a parent who attempts to be alienating, forming an alliance with the target parent instead, even though that parent may be unaware of the alliance and may not see the child for a long time. The situation can become very difficult when a child is alienated toward the parent they are living with. In some cases, this results in violence on the part of the child toward the custodial parent or their siblings, running away, acting out in the community, taking drugs, etc. In some of these cases, the child is consciously acting out as a way of trying to get the parent to give up custody. Finally, there is the type of situation in which a child takes the side of one parent while another child takes the side of the other parent. As I have experienced in a number of cases, the children may act out the parents’ conflict toward each other, sometimes putting each other at great risk. Although such behaviour is usually not intense, I have been involved in a number of cases in which the children attacked each other with knives and other weapons. This pattern, and the one described in the previous paragraph, are fairly common in families in which there had been violence in the marriage, and a child, usually a boy, takes the place of the father, even if that parent has been totally uninvolved for some years. Such a child can be very violent toward their siblings, their mother, and others in the community. Although I will not discuss these variations further in this manual, I recommend a team effort between professionals in these cases as well as with those involving parental alienation as this will almost certainly be required to resolve the difficulties in some of the more difficult family situations. Otherwise, the professionals often simply become part of the problem.