SPECIAL
ISSUE: PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS: CONCEPTS,
CONTROVERSIES,
& CONUNDRUMS
CONCEPTS
AND CONTEXTS
PARENTAL ALIENATION: IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND FOR A MORE
DIFFERENTIATED THEORY
Janet R. Johnston and Matthew J. Sullivan
The concept of parental
alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains
mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal
strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this
paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and
children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and
widening focal concerns of PA- from children who make false allegations of
abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent
relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of
a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using
PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an
alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is
inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on
the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have
been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child’s rejecting
stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid,
differentiated clinical predictions of children’s rejection of a parent, informed
by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor
models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and
interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused
prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable
across different types of interventions.
Key Points for the Family
Court Community:
Several
socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the
prevalence, focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.
Persistent erroneous assumption
that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child’s
resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of
PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research and practice.
Four principal factors
(illustrating a refined
multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals
for preventive–interventions
and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of
interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.
Keywords: Alienation;
Estrangement; High-Conflict Divorce; Intimate Partner Violence; Parent–Child
Contact Problems; Parental Alienation; Resistance-Refusal Dynamics.
I. WORKING DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF PAPER1
“‘Parental Alienation’ is
the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child into
showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility toward a parent and/or other
family members.” (Wikipedia).
This common conception of “parental alienation” [PA]
appears to be thriving alongside continuing controversy among researchers,
professional organizations, family justice practitioners, advocates and parents
as to the legitimate existence of the phenomena (Bernet, Boch-Galhau,
Corresponding:
sullydoc@aol.com
FAMILY
COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 270–292 © 2020 Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts
Baker, &
Morrison, 2010; Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Johnston,
2003; Meier, 2009, 2019; Milchman, Geffner, & Meier, 2020; Nielsen, 2018;
Walker & Shapiro, 2010; Warshak, 2010b, 2016). Despite ongoing disagreement
about the quality of social science research on the subject,2 disparities
in acceptance of PA across interdisciplinary boundaries and professional
organizations,3 and challenges to the admissibility and use of PA in
court proceedings,4 more than three decades after its introduction
(Gardner, 1998, 2002), the concept of PA continues to be embraced by widening
public, professional and international audiences (Bernet, 2020; Lorandos,
2020). At the same time strong proponents and strong opponents of the ideas
remain stalemated over the value of PA. Frustration mounts and confusion reigns
when professional articles repeat their rhetoric, lauding or condemning PA
concepts and interventions. It is particularly disconcerting and discouraging
to encounter the extent of “scholar advocacy bias,” co-mingling
with valid reports of the research in what are supposedly critical reviews of
PA studies and clinical theorizing from both sides of the polarized divide5.
Meanwhile popular conceptions of PA are widely disseminated by way of
infomercials and personal narratives in the public domain through books,
magazines and social media. Together, they have spawned an unregulated cottage
industry of programs and services by persons with varying credentials and
potential conflicts of interest (Warshak, 2020).
Commonly-used conceptions of PA that refer loosely or
inconsistently to PA as a unitary cause, the process, and/or the result of a
child’s unjustified rejection of a parent tend to
confuse and oversimplify what are essentially diverse and complex dynamics.
Their use can potentially mislead the court, fuel mutual blaming between
parents and stigmatize the children with an unwarranted psychiatric label. For
this reason, some critical reviewers have urged professionals to avoid the use
of PA terms altogether, and to instead employ behavioral descriptors of the
problem by referring to “parent-child contact problems,” “strained
parent-child relationships” and to children who “reject
a parent” or “resist/ refuse visitation” (Saini, Johnston, Fidler, & Bala,
2016). This advice appears to have been heeded only in part. Changing
nomenclature does not solve the basic problem. Advocates in court tend to
ignore more carefully crafted, differentiated use of PA concepts in order to
build their case. Avoiding use of PA terms entirely risks giving free reign to
persons, authorized by court orders but not constrained by professional
standards, to use the terminology loosely to intervene with vulnerable children
and their families, potentially with ineffective or harmful consequences.
Furthermore, discarding PA terminology entirely risks throwing out the good
with the bad, and not discerning the significant contributions that PA ideas make
to the field. The fact is that wellinformed consultants, counselors,
family court practitioners, researchers and advocates are using PA constructs
responsibly to respond to complex and vexing problems. A perusal of the Family
Court Review April, 2020 special issue on children resisting contact with a
parent (Fidler & Bala, 2020) illustrates the increasingly nuanced
conceptual, multi-level clinical thinking about this matter.
A. THE NATURE OF THE PHENOMENA
For the newcomer to the family
justice field (which includes many judges), PA seems a logical, and
easily comprehensible explanation for otherwise inexplicable negative
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of children toward one of their parents. The
scenario of a stridently angry child or an anxious, avoidant child, reciting
unjustified or exaggerated convictions about, and refusing contact
with a parent, is one that resonates with the experience of family justice
professionals across national borders. In the wake of a bitter divorce, it is
deceptively easy to assume that a child is simply parroting the attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors of a spiteful former partner. For this reason, PA as a
phenomenon has a compelling and intuitive appeal that is not likely to
disappear.
It is common for separating
individuals to review and revise the failed relationship and reach new “insights” about
themselves and their former partner. High-conflict individuals rewrite their
personal history in their minds- and crystalize their anger, disappointment,
grief, and humiliation- to derive particularly negative, polarized, even
dehumanized views of the former partner. These accounts are consolidated as
narratives and family legends when shared in some manner with others, including
children. This may be the stuff of bad-mouthing and the “curriculum” for
a campaign of indoctrination of denigration, mistrust and hate by those parents
with an agenda of disrupting or terminating the child’s relationship
with the other parent. Before assuming this singular motivation, proponents of
PA must consider the extent to which these negative views and “false” allegations
are rooted in actual stressful events and real incidents of trauma and abuse,
and the extent to which a parent’s motivation may be legitimate- if
misdirected- attempts to cope and protect rather than to spite.
Identifying as a victim of PA can
be a salve to painful wounds inflicted upon parents whose child is
rejecting them. In custody litigation, allegations of PA can also be a legal
strategy used by abusive parents to defend themselves against allegations of
child abuse and intimate partner violence, or to prevent a victim parent from fleeing
and relocating (Dalton, 1999; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003; Neustein &
Lesher, 2005; Silberg et al., 2013). If successful, this strategy can result in
traumatized children being placed with an abusive parent and re-traumatized
(Meier, 2019). Just as devastating an outcome is possible when malicious or
pathological parents influence their dependent children to
adopt false beliefs about, and cut off contact with, a good, loving parent
(Baker, 2005; Harmon & Kruk, 2018).
In some family courts, PA is an
expedient way of labeling a highly conflicted custody dispute where a child
is rejecting an apparently adequate parent. Undifferentiated findings
can result in indiscriminate use of blunt enforcement tools like contempt,
custody reversal, suspended access for a preferred parent, and orders to
participate in expensive, intrusive and sometimes poorly vetted treatments
(Mercer, 2019). Similar problematic dispositions occur when courts do nothing,
and children continue to be exposed to PA behavior, without any contact with a
potentially good mother or father over the long term.
This paper begins by discussing
the broader historical socio-cultural-legal context that has given rise to the
PA phenomenon and shows why PA continues to be such a hot-button issue in
family law. It goes on to critique some common conceptions of PA arguing that
lack of definitional clarity, basic erroneous assumptions, over-reaching
claims that are not consistent with extant empirical research findings,
and uncritical application of flawed PA concepts to new domains
impede more widespread consensus, endorsement and legitimization of PA
constructs.
We approach the controversies, conflict and
polarities in the field by avoiding absolutist or simplistic positions, and by
suggesting more refined definitional criteria and theoretical
development to help ensure that PA constructs can be applied with more rigor
and integrity. It is argued that there is a need to move from single-factor to
more differentiated multi-factor intervention-focused models, to better
understand these families and to decide whether, when and how to intervene in
ways that are likely to support their children’s healthy social–emotional
development. A differentiated approach is necessary to avoid the risks of harming
rather than helping children and families (Fidler & Bala, 2010). We
conclude by proposing that, despite partisan positions on etiology and
different approaches to intervention designed for these families, much-needed
research on the effectiveness of interventions can be built upon agreed-upon
outcome goals.
II. WHY PA CONTINUES TO GENERATE SUCH
CONTROVERSY AND POLARITIES AMONG PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD
“Parental alienation has become the ‘complaint
du jour’ in high-conflict family court disputes… [It
is…]
an emotionally charged, high stakes and frequently misunderstood process. It
often leads to over-identification and a backlash of skepticism
about it and when it should be a significant consideration in custody
determinations.” (Sullivan, 1997, p. 4).
This observation, made more than two decades ago,
unfortunately is perhaps even more apt today. Polarization in the field
stems from a series of socio-cultural shifts in gender roles over the last 50
years, and the corresponding revolution within family life and rise in divorce
rates, liberalization of divorce laws and reforms in family court practices.
Power differences shifted between men and women with the rapid rise in divorce
rates and wave of divorce reforms in the 1970s and 1980s. Three advocacy movements
have since pressured the family law system with laudable but competing claims:
(1) Advocates for abused women and children; (2) Advocates for father
involvement in parenting and presumptions in favor of shared parenting; and (3)
Advocates for the voice of the child. How each of these three movements has
helped frame PA theory and continue to sustain its popularity and controversy
are described below.
A. VICTIM ADVOCACY AND THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF ABUSE VERSUS PARENTAL
ALIENATION
The 1970s witnessed the introduction
of “no
fault” divorce laws followed by increasing use of provisions
encouraging mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes on the
premise that gender equity would be promoted, and that separated parents would
be better able to settle their own affairs without state interference. This
premise was challenged by the rapidly rising advocacy movement on behalf of
victims of domestic violence (Dalton, 1999; Jaffe et al., 2003; Morrill, Dai,
Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005; Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Schneider, 2008).
Advocates argued that abused women and children fared worse without some of the
protection afforded by “fault” based divorce statutes. Further they
raised concerns about the move away from court hearings that provided more
accountability to mediation, where women could be threatened and coerced by
their partners into agreements that compromised their interests, safety and
ability to protect their children. Subsequently, and for good cause, political
pressure has been applied to family courts to stem the re-victimization of
abused women that potentially co-occurs with father-child access orders.
Initiatives to protect victims of abuse have included efforts to require the
screening out from mediation of cases for intimate partner violence, and
providing for civil protection orders and other injunctive relief (Girdner,
1989; Johnston & Ver Steegh, 2013; Lerman, 1984; Maxwell, 1999; Semple,
2012). Hence arose the distinction between family violence cases and high-conflict,
custody-disputing cases (Dalton, 1999).
It is important to note that
historically the concepts of Parental Alienation Syndrome and PA first
arose in this context; specifically, in custody litigation where a
central issue was distinguishing between false and substantiated allegations of
child sexual abuse (Gardner, 1992). This problem surfaced with dawning public
awareness during the 1980s of the possibility that child sex abuse was a
pernicious and psychologically destructive kind of abuse that is more prevalent
than was previously assumed. Moreover, it is easily hidden, hard to detect, and
perpetrated primarily by trusted, known others like family members and friends.
Reports of child sex abuse, most founded, but also a growing number of
unfounded allegations in the context of high conflict separations, increased
substantially through the next decade. The increase in unfounded allegations
was bolstered by the simplistic and erroneous views of some mental health
professionals at that time that “children don’t lie” about
sexual abuse. The surge in unfounded sexual abuse allegations abated when
better investigative protocols were adopted based on research on the
reliability of children’s testimony.
Is it abuse or is it parental
alienation was the essential question being asked as to why some children made
allegations of abuse against a parent in family law cases (Gardner, 1998; Drozd
& Olesen, 2004). We will show that the framing of this binary question may
produce a false dichotomy– a Hobbesian-like question– that
has misled the field, virtually excluding physical abuse, trauma, poor
parenting, and ongoing interparental conflict as factors from subsequent
consideration once a finding of alienating behavior by a parent is made. The framing
of this question suggests that PA and “Abuse” are mutually exclusive categories,
and does not leave room for them to be recognized as commonly overlapping
phenomena.
The problem is that no bright
line exists between abuse and non-abuse in custody-disputing cases in family
courts. Despite universal agreement that family violence and child abuse
preclude a finding of PA (Fidler et al., 2013; Gardner, 1992), virtually
no common criteria exist to ensure these distinctions have been made.
When allegations of serious abuse
or domestic violence are made, there is normally a report and an investigation
undertaken by child protection authorities or police. The nature of the offense
together with characteristics of the child and family, and availability of
community services will tend to dictate whether the child is subject to child
protection proceedings (Houston, Bala, & Saini, 2017; M. S. Saini,
Laajasalo, & Platt, 2020). When clearly substantiated, serious allegations
trigger what is generally deemed to be an appropriate response dictated by
statutes governing the offense, but also by varying court and agency
administrative protocols. Professional organizations (like American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Association of Family &
Conciliation Courts and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges)
have developed best-practice standards for the assessment and processing of IPV
and child abuse cases on a priority basis, usually with an investigation before
family law proceedings. A clear finding of abuse or violence in
criminal or dependency court is generally considered definitive evidence
of child abuse or serious domestic violence, and there is unlikely to be a
later family court trial. However, when there is not a clear prior finding,
in family court proceedings (if parents are separating and disputing custody)
the parties may argue the case based on a false dichotomy question: “Is
it abuse or PA?” This leaves it to the family court to resolve issues of the
nature, extent and effect of any abuse or violence.
The response to parenting violations of lesser magnitude,
and to cases where abuse is difficult to detect, is more variable
across jurisdictions and agencies, reflecting cultural and cohort differences.
There are few recognized provisions for classifying borderline cases of abuse
nor cases of alleged abuse that are unable to be substantiated one way or the
other. Violent reactions by a primary victim in response to IPV are generally
not considered as an offense, but it can be difficult for investigators or courts to
make clear findings in situations where both partners have been violent.
In sum, the difficulty of validly and reliably identifying child abuse and
witness to IPV raises the question of whether these kinds of cases have been,
or are able to be, excluded prior to a finding of PA.
B. ADVOCACY FOR SHARED-PARENTING AND FATHERS’ RIGHTS
The second socio-cultural shift
has been the increased involvement of fathers in parenting. Whereas in most
intact two-parent families mothers continue to do more childcare, especially
for infants and pre-school children, more mothers are also in the labor force,
and the role of fathers in parenting has dramatically increased over the last
half century. These shifts in parenting roles were reflected in changes
in the last quarter of the twentieth century in child custody laws, from a
presumption that children are best raised primarily by mothers, called the “Tender
Years Doctrine,” to the “Best Interests of the Child,” a
gender-neutral principle (Cancian, Meyer, Brown, & Cook, 2014; McCall,
2019). Under the statutes enacted in many jurisdictions, it is presumed that it
is in the best interests of children to have frequent and significant
contact with both parents following parents’ separation. Many jurisdictions have
adopted laws that create a presumption of some form of shared parenting or
joint custody, defined here as joint decision-making and about a one-third/
two-third timesharing arrangement. With legal and social changes, rates of
post-separation shared parenting have rapidly increased, and equal time
arrangements are also more common, while postseparation father “drop
out”
has plunged (Cancian et al., 2014; Pruett, Cowan, Cowan, & Diamond,
2012). In sum, law reform and changing parental roles have created a structural
change in the power dynamics of co-parents, resulting in a greater likelihood
of conflict about parenting time and responsibilities.
The reality is that,
notwithstanding increasing diversity in family structures and reproductive
technological advances, conflicted co-parenting dynamics are
primarily gendered.6 Previously, mothers were assumed to be the
primary parent and accepted as gatekeepers of others’ involvement with
their children, including the father’s. After the shift to shared parenting
as the legal presumption, and with the support of advocates for father’s
rights, fathers now could more successfully protest in court when they felt
mothers were unfairly keeping the gates closed to their full involvement with
their children. In cases where parental gatekeeping was not determined to be
legitimate and protective, it was considered to be problematic, if not
pathological, restrictive gatekeeping and/or parental “alienating” behavior
(Austin, Pruett, Kirkpatrick, Flens, & Gould, 2013; Ganong, Coleman, &
Chapman, 2016).
A related socio-cultural shift
involves the increasing geographic mobility of individuals and families across
state, national, and continental boundaries, usually when economic opportunities
open up for employment in a changing global market. This constitutes a significant
event subsequent to parental separation, divorce and re-marriage. These
situations can lead one parent to petition the court for permission to relocate
with the children over the objection of the left-behind parent. PA allegations
may be deployed, and if founded, under some circumstances can help prevent the
move. In these cases argument may be made that migrating mothers with young
children, if allowed to relocate, are unlikely to exert the required effort to
nurture and sustain the children’s long distance relationship with
left-behind fathers over time.7 This implies an obligation for the
moving parent to actively support and foster the child’s relationship
with the left-behind parent, beyond refraining from PA behavior.
We applaud the trends in
increased father involvement, and we argue that some scholar advocates are
making over-reaching claims about research findings on the benefits
of relatively equal time sharing (for which there is little empirical support),
while giving insufficient attention to the large body of research showing it is
quality of father involvement that matters to child outcomes. Further, scholar
advocates have made much of the negative consequences of father/mother absence,
but do not mention the negative consequences of the presence of parents who are
poor role models or engage in problematic parenting practices. (Bauserman,
2002; McCall, 2019); Nielsen, 2013, 2017; Warshak, 2014).
In a social environment strongly
promoting more father involvement, one could speculate that social aspersions
may be cast upon parents with little or no contact with their children.
Widespread rhetoric implying grave consequences of not being an involved,
shared-parenting dad (or mom), contributes to competing claims and unrealistic
expectations for some parents and children for whom such arrangements may not
be well suited. Not all children are able to benefit from a shared parenting schedule
and there are vastly different ways in which parents and children can be in
each other’s lives, if not enjoy each other’s company, without spending large
blocks of time together8.
Note that within the context of a sociopolitical climate
advocating for shared parenting time, the focal attention of proponents of PA
has shifted from children making false allegation of sexual abuse - to include
a larger group of children who resist or refuse to have contact with a parent.
In addition, PA has been argued, among other factors, to be relevant to the difficult
issue of relocation. Compared to the era when PA allegations were made
primarily in response to sex abuse allegations against the target parent,
currently PA allegations are more likely to be made in response to
resistance/refusal of contact with a parent. A careful look at a child’s
resistance to contact may surface several issues, for example, a history of
inadequate parenting by the target parent and an overanxious protective
preferred parent- problems that could be exacerbated by the child’s
discomfort with an ill-fitting access schedule.
C. ADVOCATES FOR THE VOICE OF THE CHILD
A third socio-cultural shift that
has likely contributed to the fertile context for PA controversies to develop
is the increased recognition of the relevancy and importance of the voice of
the child in matters that concern them, including legal proceedings. Societal
norms have come a long way from the era in which children were “to
be seen but not heard.” In fact, children’s autonomy and ability to make
decisions for themselves have become highly valued capacities in contemporary
western society, with class and cultural variations. At the nation state level
this trend is reflected in, and reinforced by, the civil rights afforded
directly to children in democratic countries that give them more opportunities
to express their wishes and preferences, including in disputed custody
situations (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
Carried to the extreme, however,
this empowerment of children is a hallmark of over-permissiveness. Entitling
children to wield authority and power beyond their years, regardless of the
legitimate needs of others, further weakens co-parental executive functioning,
and undermines integrity of the hierarchy in parent–child
relationships, affording a less safe and secure foundation for the child’s
psychological development (Minuchin, 1974). In particular, co-parenting conflict
can create a power vacuum that the child’s voice can prematurely fill.
In custody-disputing cases, this can precipitate sibling alliances and
exacerbate children’s alliance with one parent against the other. In preparation
for court hearings and similar threatening contexts, preferred parents and
children tend to gang up on their adversary by making similar or identical
declarations about the target parent, while protesting that the children are “independent
thinkers.” In these situations, intense debate ensues between advocates
for each of the family members– fathers, mothers and children- as to
whose voice is speaking and whose preferences are being expressed– the
preferred parent’s, or the child’s?
Proponents of PA view the
chorused voices of the children and preferred parent as one of the defining
features of a child who has been psychologically abused and emotionally
manipulated by the preferred parent. Indeed, the children’s
presentation can be alarming: they appear strident, rehearsed, and use pseudo-adult
phraseology; have distorted perception and judgment, view one parent as all
good and the other as all bad without ambivalence or empathy; and have
knowledge and concerns about adult matters way beyond their years.
Unquestionably, children need relief from the burdens that have been placed on
them. The longevity, depth, and resistance involved in their embattled stance
tends to dissipate with time or when the active litigation and inter-parental
conflict
ceases depending upon the nature of the threat, developmental phase and the
disposition of the child. Although serious psychopathology is possible, it is
irresponsible to imply this is the state or fate of these children in general.
Proponents of PA question the
authenticity of the voice of the child- citing the child’s demeanor as an
indicator of poor or unstable self-esteem and low self-efficacy-that
is being eroded by PA behavior of a powerful, preferred parent. Note that a
focal concern of these proponents has now shifted to incorporate the short and
long-term effects of emotional abuse inherent in PA, at times making dire
prognostications that specialists in developmental psychopathology would be
loath to make. For example, life-long depression, anxiety and poor self-esteem
are attributed to PA in childhood as are personality disorders and psychotic
conditions. Extrapolating from short-term observations of developmentally
expected reactions, and often without reference to study limitations (small
convenience samples, absence of control groups, data collected retrospectively
or concurrently), research is cited by PA proponents out of context in support
of testimony that serious enduring, emotional damage is being wrecked on the
child’s psyche (Baker, 2005; Bernet et al., 2010; Boch-Galhau,
2018).9
a. Summary of Socio-Cultural
Shifts. In sum, the focal concern of PA theory has shifted considerably over
the three decades since its inception, broadening its domain of application
from false allegations of sexual abuse, to include resistance and refusal of
contact, relocation issues, and emotionally abusive or inadequate parenting
practices of the favored parent. The combined effect of these focal shifts
within socio-cultural movements, in part, powered by ongoing gender politics,
ensure that PA will continue to be the “complaint du jour” for
some time to come. Further, while advocates for the concepts of PA have seized
upon the limited research on PA and shared parenting and make over-reaching
claims about what research has found to legitimize PA, advocates opposing PA
concepts have dismissed the growing body of research, clinically based
literature, first person accounts, and judicial decisions accepting PA, to
support their position that PA is just “junk science.” It is also
important to recognize that while a majority of parents who claim to be victims
of PA are fathers, many mothers (perhaps a growing proportion of cases) are
also raising the issue of PA; these cases of mother rejection are not often
mentioned by opponents of PA.
The impact of scholar advocacy,
and the ease and impact of group affiliation among likethinking others,
has inevitably reinforced collective cognitive biases and empowered parent and
professional advocacy groups, regardless of the merits of their goals and
ideas. The proliferation of advocacy groups, some voicing more extreme views
and engaging in uncivil professional interactions about PA (on both sides of
the polarized divide) has helped to create a more difficult,
adversarial context for co-parents and for professionals in this already
challenging area of practice.
Adding to the problem is democratization of information on
the internet (easy access to unvetted information from unknown, often biased
and irresponsible sources) and the structure of search algorithms (which
operate to provide selective, biased information based on one’s
search history). These changes have made it difficult for parents to gain access to
evidence-informed or evidence-based social science information about the highly
complex family dynamics that contribute to PA. This has contributed to the
polarization evident in co-parents and the professional context that surrounds
them. Frustrated and angry, parents turn to the internet when they feel the law
has failed them. Basically, using an internet search, anyone can find
(or have sent to them unsolicited by virtue of their search history) validation
for any view they already hold by an internet search. Once that search is done,
the internet floodgates to information from and ways to affiliate
across the globe with scholars, individuals and advocacy groups that promote
and reinforce that view.
III. SHIFTING DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR
IDENTIFYING PA CASES
The term PA is often used loosely
without defining the concept itself, nor describing the context of study,
nor differentiating perspectives of observers. First, PA can refer to three
different aspects of a child–parent relationship problem- the
alienating behavior of the parent, the characteristics of an alienated child,
and a general theory of how alienation occurs. Confusion arises when users of
PA terms do not define, or are inconsistent about, their specific
usage of PA terminology. Second, users of the PA construct draw upon their
experience with widely different populations, such as family court filings,
custody evaluations, parental abduction victims, specialized treatment
programs, internet surveys, studies of cults, and private practice settings.
How these different contexts affect the severity and nature of the problem is
not often considered. Third, assertions about PA are typically drawn from
selected informants with vastly different perspectives raising the question of
source reliability. (Faust, 2018; Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Garber,
2015; Johnston & Goldman, 2010; Judge, & Deutsch, 2017; Kopetski, 1998;
Polak & Moran, 2017; Sullivan, Ward, & Deutsch, 2010; Walters &
Friedlander, 2016; Warshak, 2010a, 2020).
There are two general theories or models that have evolved
over time which attempt to explain how or why PA occurs: (1) A dominant Single
Factor Model; and (2) Multi-Factor Models. The features, strengths and problems
with each formulation are described in the next section.
A. THE DOMINANT SINGLE FACTOR MODEL OF PA
Most commonly PA refers to family
situations where a child, for no adequate or justifiable reason,
expresses negative attitudes, beliefs and behavior toward one of his/her
parents primarily due to the preferred parent’s denigrating attitudes, beliefs and
sabotaging behaviors (Baker, 2005; Bernet et al., 2010; Gardner, 2002). We
refer to this widely promulgated view of PA as the dominant Single-Factor model
or theory of PA.
The dominant Single Factor theory
of PA asserts a primary causal relationship
between the PA behavior of the preferred parent and a PA child, i.e. PA
BehavioràPA children. To identify a primary causal relationship
requires the PA proponent to show that: (1) all other factors that potentially
contribute to the child’s negative stance have been considered
and, if not ruled out, their combined contribution is exceeded by the
contribution of the single factor - PA Behavior; (2) PA Behavior precedes a PA
child in time; and (3) a consistent direct empirical relationship exists
between PA Behavior and the PA child’s characteristics.
We argue that these criteria are
difficult
to satisfy or are not supported by available data. First, it is not a simple
task to show that the child’s beliefs, perceptions and behavior
are unwarranted, that no adequate reason or legitimate rationale exists for the
child’s negative stance. The problem is that this is a “residual” or
default definition and requires the PA proponent to undertake extensive
hypothesis testing to prove a series of non-events. In practice, this often
involves showing that abuse and/or deficit parenting on the part of the
target parent did not occur. It should also
involve showing other “reasonable” explanations for the child’s
negative stance do not exist- like the
developmental stage of child; prolonged absence of target parent; normal
adjustment difficulties with divorce transition and step-family formation;
untenable loyalty conflict in response to parental conflict; and sibling influences.
Confirming
rather than rejecting the null hypothesis is generally regarded as a weak
strategy for empirically testing theories.
The second reason the dominant
Single Factor Model for PA is inadequate is that, in the absence of
longitudinal observations, there is no way to confirm that the preferred parent’s
PA Behavior precedes the emergence of a PA child in time, or vice versa. For
example, it could be that a preferred father initiated bad-mouthing of the
mother, resulting in the child’s rejection of her. Alternatively, in
response to a child’s distress upon returning from mother’s home, a
concerned father could attribute blame and express distrust of the mother in
ways that undermine the child’s confidence in her. A father can be the
victim of derogation and false accusations of abuse by a hateful mother or he can be an architect of his own despoiled
reputation by reacting in a punitive or immature way to his child’s
disrespect of him.
Until such time that suitable
data becomes available (e.g. from longitudinal or large–scale studies of
representative populations), assertions or implications of causal relationships
between PA behaviors and the consequent short or long-term effects on children
or adults are speculative and premature. Cross-sectional studies can, however,
provide useful correlational data that describe the pattern of relationships
between factors– indicating their significance, strength and robustness as
predictors of various outcomes of interest. Meanwhile, child custody evaluators
and clinicians need to systematically assess and weigh these factors to
clinically test the viability of alternative hypotheses in individual cases,
with due uncertainty acknowledged in any conclusions drawn.
The third criteria for
establishing a causal relationship is also not met by the dominant Single
Factor Theory of PA. Extant empirical research indicates only a moderate to
weak and somewhat inconsistent correlation between the preferred parents’ alienating
behavior and a child’s rejection of a target parent (M. A. Saini et al., 2016). In
some studies, young adults reporting retrospectively indicate that parental
denigration is a tactic that may ultimately backfire on the maligner. Some youngsters
develop negative PA attitudes in the absence of negative PA behaviors by either
parent for instance, in response to untenable loyalty conflict
due to chronic inter-parental conflict or in response to problems with a
parent’s new partner. In custody disputing families, it is not
unusual for both parents to bad-mouth one another but their child rejects
neither of them, or distances him/herself from both (Johnston, 2005; Johnston,
Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009: Mone & Biringen, 2006; Rowen & Emery,
2014; Saini et al., 2016).
In sum, the Single Factor model makes the false assumption
that family abuse and deficit parenting on the part of either
parent can be, and has been, ruled out along with other alternative, “reasonable” explanations
for the child’s negative stance. If so, alienating behavior by the preferred
parent becomes the singular or prime suspect for identifying PA and made
culpable for the child’s stance. It follows that there is risk for Type 2 errors in
diagnosis (false positives for PA). To the extent alternative factors are not
assessed, vestiges of the “false dichotomy” continue to
surface in the form of several erroneous assumptions or myths (see Box 1) and
some family courts and the general public have uncritically adopted the more
simplistic explanation.
BOX 1
Common Erroneous Assumptions Deriving from the Single Factor Model
Myth 1. A child who
resists or refuses contacts with a target parent is either a victim of abuse by that parent or a victim of parental alienating behavior by the preferred parent,
but not both.
Myth 2. If a
parentally alienated child exists, then the preferred parent’s alienating
behavior must exist and is fueling the child’s alienation.
Myth 3. If no abuse
by the target parent has been found, and a parentally alienated child exists,
the favored parent is culpable, and the target parent is exonerated of
parenting deficits.
The problem with the dominant Single Factor theory of PA is
that not only is justice not served by possible indictment of the wrong
suspect, harm can be inflicted by implementing inappropriate
interventions and treatments. Radically different approaches- in fact
contradictory treatment protocols- are derived from the False Dichotomy and
erroneous assumptions listed in Box 2.10 The consequences of a
misdiagnosis are grim when there is only one contradictory alternative.
Moreover, the focus to find one cause may detract from
assessing other factors that can help to repair and restore the child’s
relationship with the resisted parent.
IV. MULTI-FACTOR THEORETICAL MODELS
In response to the deficiencies
in the Single-Factor Model, during the past 20 years, many family court
professionals have explicitly adopted or developed more nuanced, multi-factor
models to guide their assessments of and to intervene with families where a
child is resisting or refusing contact with a parent. As illustrated in this
Special Issue (Fidler & Bala, 2020), these models increasingly draw upon a
wide range of basic and applied social science research (Garber, 2004, 2015,
2020; Judge & Deutsch, 2017).
A reformulation of PA theory was
proposed defining the “alienated child” as one whose
negative stance is disproportionate to their actual prior experience with the
rejected parent (Kelly & Johnston, 2001). As shown in Figure 1, a
systematic array of developmentally expected, problematic and pathological
factors that can create an alliance with one parent against the other are
viewed as the vortex in which the child’s response is forged, depending upon
the child’s resilience and vulnerabilities (Fidler et al., 2013; Friedlander
& Walters, 2010; Johnston et al., 2009; Judge & Deutsch, 2017; Sullivan
& Kelly, 2001).
In this model, PA behavior by the
preferred parent is viewed as an important but not the only, nor necessarily
the dominant, factor accounting for children’s resistance or refusal of contact
with a parent following parental separation. Predisposing, precipitating and
perpetuating factors to children’s negative stance toward one parent
derive from normal developmental attachment issues, adjustment difficulties
during divorce transition and step-family formation, prolonged absence of the
rejected parent, deficit parenting by either or both parents, untenable loyalty
conflict
in response to co-parental conflict, and sibling or third party influences
such as grandparents, or even therapists. More peripheral though potent factors
that exert indirect effects or have interactive effects include professional
mismanagement, protracted litigation, history of marital conflict,
a humiliating separation, and parent personality disorders.
a. Is it Child Abuse, IPV, PA, or
All Three? The answer to this question depends, in part, upon the court’s
jurisdiction. Within a paradigm of child and victim protection, and offender
accountability assumed by dependency and criminal courts, it has long been
recognized that perpetrators of IPV manipulate their children’s
ideas and feelings in the service of maintaining coercive control over the
victim partner. Perpetrators of IPV are also more likely to be abusive parents,
typically using tactics of coercive control punctuated by explosive bouts of
authoritarian rule and/or neglect– contexts in which victims of IPV
(usually mothers) can be accused of “failure to protect” (Bancroft
& Silverman, 2002; Harne, 2011). Whereas many children prefer the non-violent
parent, it is not uncommon for those who have been directly abused, emotionally
terrorized, and/or witness to family violence by a parent, to assert loyalty to
the abusive parent, adopting false narratives blaming the other parent, who is
usually a victim of the same abuser; that is, they are by definition
PA children, but are primarily identified as abused.
On the other hand, the dominant
paradigm of contemporary family courts- emphasizing collaboration and
cooperation– makes PA an issue more easily identified as the
problem, especially in ambiguous contexts where cross allegations of abuse have
not been clearly substantiated. Moreover, in high-conflict custody
disputing families, with a child resisting or refusing contact, coercive
tactics used to gain the child’s compliance can quickly escalate and
precipitate a critical incident of traumatic proportions. Such incidents
(increasingly recorded by phone) can include verbal abuse,
Figure 1 Multi-factorial
model of a child’s resistance/refusal of contact.
physical
struggles, fleeing and hiding, child snatching, forceful restraint,
unwelcome demands to express physical affection (body hugs, mouth kissing),
witness to sibling abuse, and intimate partner violence (IPV). Moreover,
children resisting contact are more likely to be traumatized rather than
reassured if law enforcement officers are brought in to escort them to
the rejected parent’s home.
Though critical incidents may be
considered fabrications or exaggerations that do not rise to the level of “abuse” according
to some critics, to the extent a potentially harmful incident greatly
overwhelms the child and/or co-parents’ capacity to cope, it is experienced
as traumatic. In turn, traumatic incidents and re-occurring stressful events
can be experienced by the child as victimization at the hands of the rejected
parent, evoking fear, anger, helplessness and avoidance, prior to and separate
from any input, positive or negative, by the preferred parent.
Some multi-factor theorists of PA
have attempted to distinguish estrangement (due to abuse, deficit parenting)
from alienation (due to PA behavior by a parent), and have also allowed for the
possibility that both abuse and PA can co-occur (Drozd & Olesen, 2004,
2010). Together with other research, it is concluded that many cases of
resist/refusal of contact are likely to involve children who have mixed
features of alienation and estrangement (Friedlander & Walters, 2010;
Johnston, 2005; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005).
b.
Is it PA or Enmeshment, or Both? This is a question
that astute practitioners found they need to ask before assuming a preferred
parent’s PA behavior is the primary culprit. In some situations, a
child’s resistance or refusal of contact derives, not so much from
the child’s experiences with the target parent, but more from separation
anxiety evoked in the child anticipating the transition between parents.
Usually this anxiety is manifest in settings other than the child’s
transfer between homes, like separating to go to school, summer camp,
sleepovers, the parent leaving for work, or even going to sleep.
Separation anxiety is normal in
young children, but can become an indicator of pathological attachment to the
preferred parent for older children (Garber, 2004; Johnston et al., 2005). In
these cases, the child’s anxieties are allayed only by the presence of the primary
caregiver. Reciprocally, the child may be meeting the needs of the primary
parent, who is unbearably anxious, lonely or depressed without the child, in a
role reversal of caretaking between the favored parent and child. Usually in
these cases, the anxiety is mutually reinforcing so that it is difficult
to tell whether its origin is with a vulnerable child or with a needy parent.
However, the child’s primary difficulty separating from the preferred
parent is not easily identified because the resistance to leaving
is attributed to the child’s expressed concerns about their
experience with the target parent.
Enmeshment- on the more extreme
end of this continuum- occurs when psychological boundaries dissolve and the
preferred parent and child are co-dependent. It is often associated with role
diffusion as the child serves varying, inappropriate functions in response to
the parent’s inchoate needs. Parent and child operate as one unit,
sharing identical feelings and views about the target parent. To varying
degrees, depending upon temperament disposition, developmental stage and
attachment history, these shared perceptions can become negatively distorted as
the preferred parent and child develop a folie-à-deux that can be quite
resistant to change. The most extreme cases may involve the child sharing the
delusions of a psychotic parent (Deutsch, Drozd, & Ajoku, 2020).
The fact that these cases are not distinguished from PA
children by the dominant Single-Factor theory can result in imposing
ineffectual or harmful legal and psychological interventions- an obvious hazard
of relying upon a simplistic uni-dimensional theory of PA. Mitigating risk of
harm is, of course, the basic ethical obligation in all intervention. Specifically,
in making threshold decisions about whether the court should intervene at all,
impose court orders for involuntary treatment, reverse custody to the rejected
parent, and/or suspend contact with the preferred parent, differential
assessment of the multifactors involved is an important first step. The
second step is to undertake a risk/benefit analysis of the potential
intervention with due consideration given to feasibility of implementation and
alternatives available. The third step is to provide an opportunity for parents
to give informed consent to the interventions, including those that are
court-ordered over the objections of parties. A fourth step to ensure that harm
has not been done is to follow up in a timely way to monitor progress.11
c.
Summary and Critique. There are often multiple,
concurrent processes producing the negative attitudes and beliefs that underlie
a child’s rejection of a parent, some of which may not surface even
after assessment. These include:
1.
Developmental phase and pre-disposition of the
child (specifically “separation anxiety and enmeshment” with
the preferred parent);
2.
Actual family trauma and deficit
parenting (also called “estrangement” from the
rejected parent);
3.
Defensive distortion due to the pernicious influence
of significant others (called PA Behavior by the preferred parent);
and/or
4. Psychotic
delusion (either a primary or shared delusion with a mentally disturbed
parent).
It is, therefore, misleading to
refer to a “parentally alienated child” when alienating parental behavior is
only one of multiple interacting factors contributing to the child’s
rejecting stance. That is, alienating behavior by one parent is neither a
necessary nor a sufficient condition for a child’s resistance/refusal of contact with
the other parent. Box 2 lists some rudimentary guidelines for best practices
when asserting PA.
For the past two decades,
variants of Multi-Factor models of PA have helped guide custody evaluations
(Bow, Gould, & Flens, 2009; Drozd & Olesen, 2004, 2010; Lee &
Olesen, 2001), early intervention and multi-modal treatment interventions for families
with children who resist or refuse contact (Fidler et al., 2013; Friedlander
& Walters, 2010; Greenberg, Schnider, & Jackson, 2019; Johnston et al.,
2009; Judge & Deutsch, 2017; Lebow & Rekart, 2007; Polak & Moran,
2017; M. A. Saini et al., 2016; Sullivan et al., 2010; Warshak, 2015). There
are emerging traumainformed treatment protocols for some mixed cases where
parental abuse, PA and enmeshment have co-occurred (Greenberg et al., 2019).12
However, the multi-determined nature of children’s rejection of a
parent is often not clearly acknowledged in debates about PA or, if it is paid
lip service, it is jettisoned by conceptual confusion when users of PA
terminology revert to the false assumptions of the dominant single factor model
of PA in practice.
One challenge is that many multi-factor models are too
complex and too costly to use in assessment and to implement on a wide scale.
Compared to the single factor model, they are more difficult to explain,
and they may appear less useful to the court or legal professionals. They can
generate unrealistic expectations for outcomes that, when not met, result in
disappointment, further devaluation and blame. From a research perspective, the
list of factors potentially contributing to resist/refuse dynamics is long, and
data available to support clinical theorizing are in short supply (Garber,
2020). Progress toward goals and outcomes in treatment are difficult
to evaluate when different factors contribute to the problem and goals of
intervention vary across cases. Only a minority of parents has the resources
necessary to undertake the comprehensive custody evaluations and specialized
interventions necessary to make full use of this theory. The overwhelming
majority of families have to make do with the possibility of misinformed
clinical judgment and naïve assumptions about PA, child abuse, IPV and the
intersection of these with PA within the context of crowded court dockets and
inadequately trained mental health professionals.
A. AWAY FORWARD: REFINING, FOCUSING AND
COMMUNICATING MULTI-FACTOR MODELS
Looking forward, we propose some
ways of reducing the complexity of multi-factor models while still identifying
factors relevant to court and clinical decision-making and interventions. The
intent of our theoretical revision is to create an example of a conceptual
model of PA that can be more easily communicated and hence more useful to
family justice professionals and their clients. Essentially, multi-factor
models of the child’s response like those shown in Figure 1 are focused on etiology
or cause, rather than on prognosis and intervention. Etiology is not destiny.
Rather, identifying factors that maintain a problem, or those that are
resources to exploit in finding its solution, may be more
useful than trying to establish and debate about its genesis.
Prediction models select those factors that are hypothesized to
be good indicators of outcome or prognosis (Patton & Sawicki, 1993). They
are also useful for developing interventions and for evaluating treatment
outcomes because factors selected are measures of the extent to which goals are
met. An analogy in a medical setting are measures of vital signs (breathing,
blood pressure and temperature) that are good prognostic signs and outcome
measures, regardless of the nature of the health emergency or the type of
treatment administered. Without needing to know a lot about the etiology of
these factors, nor details of the treatment intervention, one can administer
these measures at the beginning, during, ending, and follow up of treatment in
order to evaluate progress or lack thereof.13
Figure 2 illustrates an intervention-focused prediction
model for the multi-factor theory of PA proposed in this paper. As shown by the
text on the left side of Figure 2, we hypothesize that child resistance/refusal
of contact with a parent is predicted by four factors:
1.
Traumatic Stories/Negative Scripts (about
critical incidents and reoccurring negative eventsin the family);
2.
Co-parental alienating and restrictive
gatekeeping behavior;
3.
Inadequate or pathogenic parenting practices;
and
4. Child
vulnerability/resilience as evidenced by deficits in social, emotional and
behavioral competence.
As shown by the overlapping
circles on the left side/center of Figure 2 diagram, children
resisting/refusing contact in high-conflict custody disputing families can be
simultaneously “estranged,” and/or “alienated” from the
rejected parent, and/or “enmeshed” with an aligned parent. Each of the
four predictors are defined and justified as relevant to outcomes as follows:
a.
Traumatic Stories and Negative Scripts are defined
as expectations about the future behavior of family members, derived from the
child’s past experience of an incident and/or a series of events in
the family that threatened bodily harm, psychic injury or abandonment, and that
overwhelmed the child’s capacities to cope. They range from visceral, non-verbal
reactions to elaborated narratives that identify the source of threat and
potential victim(s). The story or scripts are charged with negative affect to
which the child responds with increasing resistance, defensive avoidance and
constriction of coping capacities (as illustrated by the narrow end of the
funnel-shaped vortex in Figure 2).
The false dichotomy, implied by
the question “is it abuse or is it PA?” is avoided in this prediction model
by using concepts of “narratives,” “stories,” and “scripts” about
what are experienced by the child as “trauma” and “stress” in terms that are familiar to
parents, public and professionals alike. These concepts by themselves invoke a
more complex set of questions, compared to the erroneous assumptions evoked by
the dominant Single Factor theory of PA (see Box 1). Questions arise about the
accuracy or degree of distortion of perception and memory, the impact of
traumatic and stressful events, and the contribution of others (inside and
outside the family) to the construction and shifts in the narrative account. It
is probable that the origin and accuracy of these stories and scripts will
continue to be disputed by proponents of PA and victim advocates who are intent
on assigning blame. More important, however, is the extent of agreement between
proponents and critics of PA that negative stories and scripts exist and are
germane to the child’s resistant stance. Provided reliable and valid measures can
be developed (a challenging task), this factor can be used to evaluate and
compare diverse interventions.
b.
Parental Alienating Behavior (PAB) and
Inappropriately Restrictive Gatekeeping by one or both co-parents refers to
negative attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of a co-parent (or agent, like a
grandparent or new partner) that have the potential
(or expressed intent) to sabotage, undermine and obstruct the child’s
relationship with the other parent. See Box 2 for expanded definition.
At the extreme, it is also identified by the complete absence of
supportive communication and collaboration between parents and between child
and each parent that have potential for strengthening the child–parent
nexus.
BOX 2
Best Practices when Asserting Parental Alienation [PA]
1. There are
many diverse perspectives about what PA is and how it works. Before opining
onPA in a specific case, it
is responsible practice to a) define PA terms precisely and use them consistently, b) disclose
all sources of information about the case, and c) summarize the theory or
process about PA that informed the formulation of that opinion.
2. It is
important to remember that a child’s rejection of a parent can arise
from multiple sources, and its basis- whether in reality, developmental phase
or disposition, defensive distortion or psychotic fantasy - often remains
obscure.
3. 
When
asserting PA, the most defensible position is to use the term “parental
alienating behaviors [PAB]. PAB is an ongoing pattern of observable negative
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of one parent (or agent) that denigrate,
demean, vilify, malign, ridicule, or dismiss the child’s other
parent. It includes conveying false beliefs or stories to, and withholding
positive information from the child about the other parent together with the
relative absence of observable positive attitudes and behaviors, (affirming the
other parent’s love/
concern for the child, and the potential to develop and maintain the child’s safe,
supportive and affectionate relationship with the other parent).
4.
If used consistently, this definition is
defensible because there are valid and reliable ways to observe and measure PA
Behavior, whether the behaviors are verbal or gestural, intentional or
non-intentional. Further development of standardized measures to collect
normative data would be helpful. Early identification and prevention of PA
Behavior make substantial contributions to the field.
This factor is based on the
construct of PA Behaviors and extended to a broader concept of coparenting
support, by reconciling PA research on the negative role of maternal “gatekeeping” in
Figure 2 INTERVENTION
FOCUSED Model Predicting Children’s resist/refusal of contact.
custody disputing
families with research on intact families that viewed gatekeeping by mothers to
be a largely benign, if not a protective practice. As a consequence of theoretical
integration,14 we now have tools to measure a spectrum of
gatekeeping behavior within the continuum of co-parental functioning (Austin,
Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013). Again, this factor is likely to be an
acceptable outcome measure for both proponents and critics of PA theory.
Focusing solely on a favored
parent’s behavior, without considering what is known about normal and
abnormal child development and the quality of parenting available from each
parent, offers only a decontextualized and incomplete description of children’s
rejecting stance toward one of their parents. For this reason additional
important factors to include are:
c.
Inadequate, Pathogenic Parenting Practices of
One or Both Parents. This refers to:
1.
Intrusive, permissive, role reversal,
manipulative parenting practices implicated in parent– child enmeshment
(Barber, Bean, & Erickson, 2002; Boch-Galhau, 2018; Chase, 1999; Clawar
& Rivlin, 1991); and
2. Rigid,
punitive, coercive tactics, authoritarian demands, and affective volatility-
associatedwith abusive parents (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Harne, 2011).
d. Child
Vulnerability and Resilience. This refers to the range in the child’s
capacity to cope with normal challenges and expectable stressors as indicated
by a standardized measure of social, emotional and behavioral competence. From
a prognostic standpoint, a history of trauma in interaction with mental health
symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, neuro-atypical and disruptive behavior
disorders must be factored into predictions about a child’s
response to the first three factors (Deutsch et al., 2020; Drozd, Saini, &
Vellucci-Cook, 2019). Age as a proxy for developmental stage and cognitive
maturity predicts increased risk for rejection of a parent from pre-adolescence
through early teen years. Gender is an exploratory variable.
Each of the four factors would
need to be operationalized with valid reliable measures on a continuum or
sliding scale (see arrows between the negative and positive poles for each of
the four factors in Figure 2, mapping the route to successful outcomes). If
data were gathered from multiple perspectives of mothers, fathers, children,
and third parties (like therapists, evaluators, or guardian ad litems), the
scales could be used for legal and clinical decision-making and evaluation of
progress toward intervention goals. These four factors could also be guiding
principles for preventative interventions such as psycho-educational programs
for divorcing parents (Moran, Weinstock, & Butler, 2019).
Successful intervention outcome could be evaluated by testing
the converse hypotheses. As shown in the text on the right side of Figure 2,
children’s expressed pleasure and acceptance of contact with a parent
is predicted by:
1.
A preponderance of positive scripts and family
stories (derived from mastery of challengesposed by stressful events);
2.
Supportive, facilitative co-parental behavior
and gatekeeping that is flexible and appropriately protective;
3.
Parenting that is warm-empathic, involved,
authoritative, consistent, and affect-regulated; and.
4. Child’s
flexible
coping reflecting emotional, behavioral and social competence (as shown
by the wide-open top of the funnel in Figure 2).
To the extent that factors used
in prediction models like the one illustrated in Figure 2 are not wedded to
specific theories about etiology and differential diagnosis, they
can serve as a generic tool for developing and comparing the efficacy
of different approaches to intervention. The factors themselves can also become
nodal hubs of research and development within particular research programs, or
candidates for theoretical integration and development across programs.
In these endeavors, models with a
different purpose can be deployed. Diagnostic models use factors that help
discriminate between categories or types (e.g. they could be used to test
hypothesized differences between estranged, alienated and enmeshed children). Process
models choose factors that describe the sequence or phases of an event or a
procedure (e.g. a decision-making tree for choosing between treatment options
or sequencing the different components of treatment for children who are both
estranged and alienated (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Drozd, Saini, &
Vellucci-Cook, 2019; Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, 2019; Greenberg et al.,
2019; Polak, Altobelli, & Popielarczyk, 2020; Sullivan et al., 2017).
Structural models are well suited for describing lines of
authority and rules governing decisionmaking in contractual relations between
parents, professionals, and the court in custody-disputing families, by defining
the roles, rights, duties and obligations of each member, as well as the domain
and tenure of the contract. Typically co-parenting contracts are negotiated by
parents’ attorneys, and are backed up by court orders and court
oversight to provide a stable legal framework that protects the child from
inter- parental conflict and allows psychological treatment to be conducted (Bala
& Slabach, 2019; Sullivan, 2019). The contract for the intervention-focused
prediction model that is depicted in Figure 2 is represented by the background
ellipse that contains and protects the family treatment from being disrupted by
chronic adversarial litigation and third party interference.
V. CONCLUSION
Normally progress in social
science research thrives on challenge, critical review and debate about
alternative approaches and interpretations. Unresolved controversy about the
status of PA concepts among family justice practitioners and researchers,
however, has been counter-productive, not unlike the destructive polarizing conflict
within the families that the same professionals purport to serve. Instead of
developing a more precise, differentiated conceptualization of PA that could
support more accurate, nuanced, balanced assessments and more effective legal
and mental health intervention, the debates have become more polarized, and
positions more extreme.
Conceived and nourished in an
advocacy environment, the unresolved controversy between the more extreme
proponents and opponents of PA has been about the legitimacy and value of PA
versus abuse as competing ideological constructs in family law.15 Moreover
the unresolved debate rests on what we have argued to be a “false
dichotomy,” i.e. the fallacious assumption that PA and abuse are mutually
exclusive categories and not co-occurring phenomena. In efforts to fend off
attacks on the legitimate existence of PA phenomena, more extreme PA proponents
tend to deploy the intuitively plausible but flawed Single Factor model of PA
wherein the effects of PA and its treatments tend to be over-stated and
erroneous assumptions go unchallenged. This in turn provides rationale for the
more extreme PA opponents to dismiss PA concepts entirely as harmful
pseudo-science and to advocate for their own concerns about disempowered,
abused women and children. In this respect, the rhetoric of scholar advocacy
bias has dominated in the debates about PA at the expense of the disciplined
deployment of the scientific method.
Other negative consequences of
unresolved controversies follow: the credibility of the family justice system
itself is at stake when professionals cannot maintain the semblance of fair,
rational discourse. Opportunities for much-needed research funding diminish
when the subject is controversial and researchers are discredited. Unresolved
disagreements between justice system practitioners are an invitation to
exploitation by litigious advocates. Most tragically the impact of the
dysfunctional dynamics at the professional level hurts families and children.
The worry is that PA seems to be
becoming an increasingly influential “all-purpose” or
generic legal strategy in family litigation. Its uncritical admission in expert
testimony in court can potentially bolster petitions for substantial changes in
custody and orders to participate in unwanted treatments without ensuring due
investigation into the multiple factors that contribute to the severity,
longevity, etiology, prognosis, nature and effects of children’s
resistance or refusal of contact with a parent. PA may also be used to rebut
relocation petitions and to counter a wide range of allegations of family
violence and abuse. Unquestionably, some children need to be protected from
harmful PA behaviors and family court may be the only recourse. If so, critical
care with respect to the admission and usage of PA in court proceedings is
needed to avoid misleading, simplistic and erroneous testimony. Without
responsible stewardship governing the use of PA constructs, there is the
potential for them to contribute to unjust, harmful and litigious outcomes.
Just as we hold out hope that the most conflicted
sub-population of custody-disputing families that we serve will transcend their
differences and build functional family relationships to support their children’s
healthy development, we dare to envision a systematic and productive program of
legal and social science research on the subject of parental alienation that
can be embraced by the field as a whole– including
proponents and opponents of PA alike. The aim is to transform conflict
and controversy into cooperation and collaboration in order to build better
social policy, community institutions, and services that can support these
families and their children.
ENDNOTES
1.
The citations in this paper are confined to
peer-reviewed articles, most published within the last decade, that are
relevant to and illustrative of the arguments we make. Without attempts to be
comprehensive, we cite sources alphabetically and leave it to the reader to
judge how and to what extent each cited article demonstrates the quality of
work that we advance in the text.
2.
Critical scientific reviews have cautioned family
justice professionals about the problems with the formulation of PA concepts
and assumptions, the paucity of standardized measures, absence of reliable
estimates of prevalence, and inadequate research on etiology, differential
diagnoses, prognosis and long-term outcomes (Drozd & Olesen, 2010; Fidler,
Bala, & Saini, 2013; Robb, 2020; Saini, Johnston, Fidler, & Bala, 2016;
Walker & Shapiro, 2010).
3.
Major professional organizations are divided or in flux about
recognition of PA concepts. The advocacy communities are split, largely along
gender lines, either strong proponents or strong opponents of the ideas and are
pressing the major organizations for their endorsement. When the American
Psychiatric Association declined to add the specific concepts of PA/Parental
Alienation Syndrome as an official psychiatric disorder in DSM-5, pro-feminists took this
to confirm that PA
concepts are entirely discredited as “junk science” (Bruch,
2001; Meier, 2019; Thomas & Richardson, 2015). PA proponents, including
father’s rights
activists, have pushed back vehemently. At the same time retreating from using
the concept of PAS as a “syndrome,” they have continued to advocate for use of PA. The World
Health Organization’s (2019)
consideration for the acceptance of PA for inclusion in its international
classification of
diseases [WHO ICD-II] has been formally protested. The American Psychological
Association is currently reviewing the issue as is the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ]. The American Professional Society on
the Abuse of Children (APSAC) has posted on its website a position paper
cautioning about the misuse of PA in the application of their guidelines on psychological
maltreatment (APSAC, ND). The Association of Family Conciliation Courts [AFCC]
has occupied a more moderate position on PA issues that has been difficult to
maintain as divisiveness increased. Beginning in 2001, AFCC, in partnership
with the Family Court Review, has each decade provided a platform for an update
of research and practice on the subject of PA from a range of perspectives.
This has proven to be a source of critical scientific reviews
that call for a more nuanced differentiation and development of PA theory.
4.
PA is widely used as a concept by courts and
practitioners in many countries but not without push back. Despite effortsto
preclude family courts from admitting expert testimony using the concept of PA,
filings
alleging PA have increased rapidly over the past two decades (Bala, Hunt, &
McCarney, 2010; Lorandos, 2020). Advocates who are concerned about the “weaponization” of
allegations of PA against abused women as a legal strategy in custody disputes,
have recently submitted an Amicus Brief to the New York Appellate Court raising
concern about potential harm to children from the misuse of PA concepts in
family court. (See also Bruch, 2001; Lee & Olesen, 2001; Meier, 2009, 2019;
Nielsen, 2018; Silberg, Dallam, & Samson, 2013; Walker, Brantley, &
Rigsbee, 2004).
5.
PA proponents and opponents with an advocate agenda do
not attend to the limitations of the research, or they simplydeclare that the
quality of research on PA is/is not worse than that on other subjects in the field. Some “cherry pick” the findings or
conflate
different phenomena. Some claim extraordinary benefits while
others allege serious harm from various PA treatments and court mandates, often
without defining the
population, context of study or even the treatment itself. Together they
confuse the field by
drawing sweeping contradictory conclusions about prognosis with and without
different kinds of interventions (Baker, 2013; Clemente & Padilla-Racero,
2016; Dallam & Silberg, 2016; Kleinman, 2017; Meier, 2010; Mercer, 2019; O’Donohue,
Benuto, & Bennett, 2016; Polak & Moran, 2017; Saini et al., 2016;
Templer, Matthewson, Haines, & Cox, 2017; Warshak, 2010a, 2010b). The
result is a literature riddled with “scholar advocacy bias” defined as “the
intentional or unintentional use of the language, methods, and approaches of
social science research, as well as one’s status as an expert, for the
purpose and/or outcome of legitimizing advocacy claims at the cost of
misrepresenting research findings” (AFCC, 2018; Emery et al., 2016, p. 134; Sandler et al.,
2016).
6.
Although beyond the scope of this article, it is worth
noting that there are an increasing number of same-sex partnerswith children
who are separating and having high conflict, with issues of parental
alienation also arising.
7.
In an Amicus Brief submitted to the California
Appellate Court on the La Musga case, the threshold of evidence ofPA was low:
the relocating mother was described by the custody evaluator as unconsciously
parentally alienating the children (In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th
1072, 1101).
8.
On one hand, children’s rights to and potential benefits from
maintaining meaningful contact with both parents are hereby acknowledged, in
accord with statutes that specify “frequent and continuing/substantial
contact”
to
be one of the factors that make up the Best Interests of the Child [BIOC]. On
the other hand, justifying a custody reversal (along with other punitive,
coercive, costly court-ordered interventions) solely on the basis of a child’s refusal to
comply with contact orders (and ignoring positive adjustment on other
indicators) is in effect elevating this one factor in importance above all the
remaining factors in the BIOC.
9.
This is not to imply that children are not at
heightened risk from PA behavior, or that the family should not be courtordered
for treatment. To the contrary, these parents and children can benefit from court
orders that provide them opportunities to participate in early preventive
intervention and treatment programs specifically designed to address these
problems as well as to empathic counselors who help them manage and cope with
ongoing stress of unresolved family conflict.
10.
Radically different but well recognized trauma-based
approaches to abuse are as follows: child victims of abuse orwitnesses to IPV
should be seen individually and together with the parent with whom they feel
more safe and secure. They need to be validated, believed, empowered, and
treated with trauma-based protocols. The abusive parent must be held
accountable; parent–child
contact may be supervised or suspended. When the child is ready, repair and
restoration of the parent–child relationship can begin, conditional on the perpetrator
having been rehabilitated.
By contrast,
treatment protocols for the PA child dictate that one must modify or remove the
negative influence of the
alienating preferred parent, avoid affirming the child’s voice
(considered to be distorted perceptions and false memory of critical family
events), disempower the child’s inappropriate role in decision-making, and reestablish
child contact with the target parent as soon as possible by court order despite
the objections of the child.
11.
For example, in deciding whether and how to reverse
custody, the following distinctions may be relevant dependingupon the context
and other relevant factors: for a seriously enmeshed child with a dependent,
depressed parent, the threat of any separation from the favored parent may be
terrifying; a custody reversal is a “parentectomy,” analogous to
surgical removal of a body part without anesthesia. Prohibitions against
contact with the attached parent threaten psychic integrity of both parent and
child, inducing panic and despair. Without protective measures in place, in the
worst-case scenario, the child may become self-destructive. On the other hand,
providing reassurance and support to the terrified pair within a well-defined plan for
the child’s graduated
reconnection with the target parent, on condition that they comply, is far more
likely to be successful.
For a PA
child in an alliance with a parent who is mentally ill or seriously character
disordered- paranoid psychotic, narcissistic and sociopathic- a rapid custody
reversal and prohibitions against any contact with the disturbed parent may be
necessary to protect and rescue the child, and to contain serious acting out
including abduction or lethal violence. Third party placement may be needed, at
least for the short term, if the target parent is unprepared and needs help to
cope with the challenge of having a child transferred to their care.
12.
Family systems based therapies (also referred to as
multi-modal family therapy)- and other forms of family reintegration therapy
(delivered on an “out-patient” basis, or
within intensive camp-like group interventions or multi-day interventions with
a single family) are being developed as treatment models for what may be mixed
cases of alienation, estrangement and enmeshment. This often includes
trauma-informed interventions because there is no way to know for sure what the
primary cause is, particularly in the cases that are less severe, and where
allegations are unable to be substantiated.
13.
Prediction models do not eliminate the necessity of
collecting background descriptive data on the population and context of the
study (of a single forensic case or sample of cases for treatment evaluation)
so that the findings can
be carefully extrapolated only to similar situations. Also, there needs to be
some documentation of the treatment model in order to compare different
interventions using outcome data. Optimally subjects of the study would be a
representative sample of the population of study and randomly assigned to
different treatments.
14.
Theoretical integration is a painstaking task of
bringing together bodies of hereto previously unrelated research on related
phenomena, systematically identifying similarities and reconciling differences
in order to produce reformulations of the conceptual ideas and interpretations
of data that are compatible with one another. Successful integration can result
in a number of advances in the state of research evidence on a subject:
expanding the domain of its applicability, providing better measures and
methods of research, and extending its usefulness in intervention.
Indiscriminate incorporation of whole bodies of social science research within
other fields in
support of PA constructs and interventions without thoughtful theoretical
integration is an indicator of scholar advocacy bias if not ignorance. This
means that it is irresponsible to simply declare equivalencies between PA
dynamics with other dynamics (for example: PA = emotional abuse; PA = cult
behavior; PA = hostagetaking; and PA = pathological attachment) without
undertaking the process of theoretical integration.
15.
Ironically, the current struggle to legitimize PA
concepts and to move from ideological advocacy to respected socialscience
research is reminiscent of the struggles and path pioneered by advocates,
practitioners and researchers in IPV and child abuse during prior generations.
REFERENCES
American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC). (n.d.). Position paper
allegations of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in
divorce/parental relationship dissolution. Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.
com/ugd/4700a8_c364609c272443a9942591a84ea9 7c6e.pdf.
American
Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2018). The APSAC handbook on
child maltreatment: Fourth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Association
of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2018). Guidelines for the Use of Social
Science in Family Law. Retrieved from
https://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/AFCC%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Social%20Science%
20Research%20in%20Family%20Law.pdf?ver=2018-12-12-091835-610.
Austin, W.
G., Fieldstone, L. M., & Pruett, M. K. (2013). Bench book for assessing
gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the dynamics of gate-closing
and opening for the best interests of children. Journal of Child Custody, 10
(1), 1–16.
Austin, W.
G., Pruett, M. K., Kirkpatrick, H. D., Flens, J. R., & Gould, J. W. (2013).
Parental gatekeeping and child custody/child access evaluation Part I:
Conceptual framework, research and application. Family Court Review, 51(3), 485–501.
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, 289–302.
Baker, A. J.
L. (2013). Parental alienation research and the Daubert standards. In D.
Lorandos, W. Bernet, & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Parental alienation: The
handbook for mental health & legal professionals (pp. 322–347). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd..
Bala, N.,
Hunt, S., & McCarney, C. (2010). Parental alienation: Canadian court cases
1989-2008. Family Court Review, 48 (1), 164–179.
Bala, N.,
& Slabach, M. (2019). The role of the courts in supporting therapeutic
interventions. In L. R. Greenberg, B. J. Fidler, & M. A. Saini (Eds.), Evidence-informed
interventions for court-involved families (pp. 19–57). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bancroft,
L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the
impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Barber, B.
K., Bean, R. L., & Erickson, L. D. (2002). Expanding the study and
understanding of psychological control. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive
parenting (pp. 263–289).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bauserman,
B. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements:
A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 91–97.
Bernet, W., Boch-Galhau, W.,
Baker, A., & Morrison, S. (2010). Parental alienation, DSM-V, and ICD-11. The
American
Journal of Family Therapy,
38(2), 76–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180903586583
Bernet, W. (2020). Parental
alienation and misinformation proliferation. Family Court Review, 58(2), 293–307.
Boch-Galhau,
W. (2018). Parent Alienation (Syndrome): A serious type of psychological child
abuse. Mental Health and Family Medicine, 14, 725–739.
Bow, J.,
Gould, J., & Flens, J. R. (2009). Examining parental alienation in child
custody cases: A survey of mental health and legal professionals. The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 127–145.
Bruch, C. S.
(2001). Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong
in child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35(3), 527–552.
Cancian, M.,
Meyer, D. R., Brown, P. R., & Cook, S. T. (2014). Who gets custody now?
Dramatic changes in children’s living arrangements after divorce. Demography, 51, 1381–1396.
Chase, N. D.
(1999). Parentification: An
overview of theory, research, and societal issues. In N. D. Chase (Ed.), Burdened
children (pp. 3–33).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clawar, S.
S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage: Dealing with programmed
and brainwashed children. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Clawar, S.
S., & Rivlin, B. V. (2013). Children held hostage: Identifying brainwashed
children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions. Chicago, IL: American Bar
Association.
Clemente,
M., & Padilla-Racero, D. (2016). When courts accept what science rejects:
Custody issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome.”. Journal of
Child Custody, 2(3), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016. 1219245
Dallam, S.,
& Silberg, J. (2016). Recommended treatments for “parental
alienation syndrome”
(PAS)
may cause children foreseeable and lasting psychological harm. Journal of Child
Custody, 13(2–3), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15379418.2016.1219974
Dalton, C.
(1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting battered parents and their children
in the family court system. Family Court Review, 37(3), 273–296.
Deutsch, R.
M., Drozd, L., & Ajoku, C. (2020). Trauma-informed intervention in
parent-child contact cases. Family Court Review, 58(2), 470–487.
Drozd, L.,
Saini, M. A., & Vellucci-Cook, K. (2019). Trauma and child custody
disputes: Screening, assessment and interventions. In L. R. Greenberg, B. J.
Fidler, & M. A. Saini (Eds.), Evidence informed interventions for
court-involved families: Promoting healthy coping and development (pp. 260–281). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Drozd, L.,
& Olesen, N. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation, and/or estrangement? A
decision tree. Journal of Child Custody, 1(3), 65–106.
Drozd, L.,
& Olesen, N. (2010). Abuse and alienation are each real: A response to a
critique by Joan Meier. Journal of Child Custody, 7(4), 253–265.
Emery, R., Holtzworth-Munroe,
A., Johnston, J. R., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Kline Pruett, M., Saini, M., &
Sandler, I. (2016).
Bending evidence for a cause:
Scholar-advocacy bias in family law. Family Court Review, 54(2), 134–149.
Faust, J. (2018). Reunification
family therapy: A treatment manual. Boston, MA: Hogrefe Publishing.
Fidler, B.
J., & Bala, N. (2010). Children resisting post separation contact with a
parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums. Family Court Review, 48(1), 10–47.
Fidler, B.
J., Bala, N., & Saini, M. A. (2013). Children who resist postseparation
parental contact: A differential approach for legal and mental health
professionals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fidler, B.
J., & Bala, N. (2020). Concepts, controversies and conundrums of “alienation”: Lessons
learned in a decade and reflections on the challenges ahead. Family Court Review, 58(2),
576–603.
Fidler, B.,
Deutsch, R., & Polak, S. (2019). “How am I supposed to treat these
cases?” Working with
families struggling with entrenched parent-child contact problems: A hybrid
case. In L. R. Greenberg, B. J. Fidler, & M. A. Saini (Eds.), Evidence
informed interventions for court-involved families: Promoting healthy coping
and development (pp. 227–260). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Friedlander,
S., & Walters, M. G. (2010). When a child rejects a parent: Tailoring the
intervention to fit the
problem. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.
Ganong, L.,
Coleman, M., & Chapman, A. (2016). Gatekeeping after separation and
divorce. In L. M. Drozd, M. A. Saini, & N. Olesen (Eds.), Parenting plan
evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 308–345). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Garber, B.
D. (2004). Parental alienation in light of attachment theory: Consideration of
the broader implications for child development, clinical practice and forensic
process. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 49–76.
Garber, B.
D. (2015). Cognitive-behavioral methods in high conflict divorce:
Systematic desensitization adapted to parentchild reunifications
interventions. Family Court Review, 53(1), 96–112.
Garber, B.
D. (2020). Sherlock Holmes and the case of resist/refuse dynamics: Confirmatory bias
and abductive inference in child custody evaluations. Family Court Review,
58(2), 386–402.
Gardner, R.
(1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for legal and mental health
professionals. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R.
A. (1998). Recommendations for dealing with parent who induce a parental
alienation syndrome in their children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,
28(3/4), 1–23.
Gardner, R.
A. (2002). Parental alienation syndrome vs. parental alienation: Which
diagnosis should evaluators use in child custody disputes. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 30, 93–115.
Girdner, L.
K. (1989). Custody mediation in the United States: Empowerment or social
control? Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 3(1), 134–154.
Greenberg,
L., Schnider, R., & Jackson, J. (2019). Early intervention with
resistance/refusal dynamics and hybrid cases. In L. Greenberg, B. J. Fidler,
& M. A. Saini (Eds.), Evidence informed interventions for court-involved
families: Promoting healthy coping and development (pp. 189–227). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harmon, J.,
& Kruk, E. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of
family violence. Psychology Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul/0000175
Harne, L. (2011). Violent
fathering and the risks to children: The need for change. Bristol, England: The
Policy Press.
Houston, C.,
Bala, N., & Saini, M. A. (2017). Crossover cases of high-conflict families
involving child protection services: Ontario findings and suggestions for best
practices. Family Court Review, 55(3), 362–374.
Jaffe, P.
G., Lemon, N. K. D., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). Child custody and domestic
violence: A call for safety & accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnston, J.
R. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of alienation
in children of divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 31(2), 58–170.
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. (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., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). Parental alignments and alienation:
Differential assessment and therapeutic interventions. In In the name of the
child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and
violent divorce (pp. 361–390). New York, NY: Springer.
Johnston, J.
R., & Goldman, J. R. (2010). Outcomes of family counseling interventions
with children who resist visitation: An addendum to Friedlander and Walters. Family
Court Review, 48(1), 112–115.
Johnston, J.
R., & Ver Steegh, N. (2013). Historical trends in the family court’s response
to intimate partner violence: Perspectives of critics and proponents of current
practices. Family Court Review, 51(1), 63–73.
Judge, A., & Deutsch, R.
(2017). Overcoming parent-child contact problems. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kelly, J.
B., & Johnston, J. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental
alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249–266.
Kleinman, T.
(2017). Family court ordered “reunification therapy:” Junk science in the guise of
helping parent/child relationships? Journal of Child Custody, 14(4), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1413699
Kopetski, L. (1998).
Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome: Part II. The Colorado Lawyer,
27(3), 63–66.
Lebow, J.,
& Rekart, K. (2007). Integrative family therapy for high-conflict divorce
with disputes over child custody and visitation. Family Process, 46(1), 79–91.
Lee, S. M.,
& Olesen, N. (2001). Assessing for alienation in child custody and access
evaluations. Family Court Review, 39 (3), 282–298.
Lerman, L.
G. (1984). Mediation of wife abuse cases: The adverse impact of informal
dispute resolution on women. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 7(7), 57–113.
Lorandos, D.
(2020). Psycho-legal investigations of the concept of parental alienation:
Analysis of American appellate cases. Family Court Review, 58(2), 322–339.
Maxwell, J.
P. (1999). Mandatory mediation of custody in the face of domestic violence:
Suggestions for courts and mediators. Family Court Review, 37(3), 335–355.
McCall, S.
(2019). Bringing specificity to child custody provisions in California. Golden Gate
University Law Review, 49(2), 141–167.
Meier, J. S.
(2009). A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parental
alienation. Journal of Child Custody, 6(3/4), 232–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410903084681
Meier, J. S.
(2010). Getting real about abuse and alienation: A critique of Drozd and Olesen’s decision
tree. Journal of Child Custody, 7(4), 219–252.
Meier, J. S. (2019). State of
New York, Court of Appeals, Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mercer, J.
(2019). Are intensive parental alienation treatments effective and safe for
children and adolescents? Journal of Child Custody, 16(1), 67–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1557578
Milchman, M.
S., Geffner, R., & Meier, J. S. (2020). Ideology and rhetoric replace
science and reason in some parental alienation literature and advocacy. Family
Court Review, 58(2), 340–361.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families
and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mone, J.,
& Biringen, Z. (2006). Perceived parent-child alienation: Empirical
assessment of parent-child relationships within intact and divorced families. Journal
of Divorce and Remarriage, 45(3-4), 131–156.
Moran, J.,
Weinstock, D., & Butler, K. (2019). Matching parent education programs to
family treatment needs. In L. R. Greenberg, B. J. Fidler, & M. A. Saini
(Eds.), Evidence-informed interventions for court-involved families (pp. 80–101). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Morrill, A.
C., Dai, J., Dunn, S., Sung, I., & Smith, K. (2005). Child custody and
visitation decisions when the father has perpetrated violence against the
mother. Violence against Women, 11(8), 1076–1107.
Nielsen, L.
(2013). Shared residential custody: Review of the research (part I). American
Journal of Family Law, 27(1), 61–72.
Nielsen, L.
(2017). Re-examining the research on parental conflict, co-parenting, and custody
arrangements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000109
Nielsen, L.
(2018). Parental alienation empirical analysis: Child best interests or
parental rights. Fredericton, Canada: Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for
Family Violence Research. Retrieved from http://www.fredacentre.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/Parental-Alienation-Linda-Neilson.pdf.
Neustein,
A., & Lesher, M. (2005). From madness to mutiny: Why mothers are running
from the family courts—and what can be done about it. Violence Against Women, 12(5),
519–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206287320
O’Donohue, W.,
Benuto, L. T., & Bennett, N. (2016). Examining the validity of parental
alienation syndrome. Journal of Child Custody, 13(2/3), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1217758
Patton, C.
V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Polak, S.,
Altobelli, T., & Popielarczyk, L. (2020). Responding to severe parent-child
rejection cases without a parentectomy: Blended sequential interventions and
the role of the courts. Family Court Review, 58(2), 507–524.
Polak, S.,
& Moran, J. (2017). The current status of outpatient approaches to
parent-child contact problems. In A. M. Judge & R. M. Deutsch (Eds.), Overcoming
parent-child contact problems: Family-based interventions for resistance,
rejection and alienation (pp. 63–90). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pruett, M.,
Cowan, P., Cowan, C., & Diamond, J. (2012). Supporting father involvement
in the context of separation and divorce. In K. Kuenhnle & L. Drozd (Eds.),
Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 123–151). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robb, A.
(2020). Methodological issues in social sciences: Making sense of polarized and
competing research claims. Family Court Review, 58(2), 308–321.
Rowen, J.,
& Emery, R. (2014). Examining parental denigration behaviors of co-parents
as reported by young adults and their association with parent-child closeness. Couple
and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(3), 165–177.
Saini, M.
A., Johnston, J. R., Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2016). Empirical studies of
alienation. In L. M. Drozd, M. A. Saini, & N. Olesen (Eds.), Parenting plan
evaluations: Applied research for the family court (2nd ed., pp. 346–372). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Saini, M.
S., Laajasalo, T., & Platt, S. (2020). Gatekeeping by allegations: An
examination of verified,
unfounded, and fabricated allegations of child maltreatment within the context
of resist and refusal dynamics. Family Court Review, 58(2), 417–431.
Sandler, I.,
Saini, M., Pruett, M. K., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., Johnston, J. R., Holtzworth-
Munroe, A., & Emery, R. E. (2016). Convenient and inconvenient truths in
family law: Preventing scholar-advocacy bias in the use of social science research
for public policy. Family Court Review, 54(2), 150–166.
Schneider,
E. M. (2008). Domestic violence law reform in the twenty-first century:
Looking back and looking forward. Family Law Quarterly, 42(3), 353–364.
Semple, N.
(2012). Mandatory family mediation and the settlement mission: A feminist
critique. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 24(1), 207–249.
Silberg, J.,
Dallam, S., & Samson, E. (2013). Crisis in family court: Lessons from
turned around cases. Washington, DC: Office of Violence Against Women,
Department of Justice.
Sullivan, M.
J. (1997). Parental alienation process in post-divorce cases. Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts Newsletter, 16(2/3), 3–4.
Sullivan,
M., Deutsch, R., & Ward, P. (2017). Co-parenting, parenting and child-focused
interventions. In A. Judge & R. Deutsch (Eds.), Overcoming parent-child
contact problems: Family-based interventions for resistance, rejection and
alienation (pp. 222–243). Oxford
Press.
Sullivan, M.
(2019). Building and managing collaborative teams. In L. R. Greenberg, B. J.
Fidler, & M. A. Saini (Eds.), Evidence-informed interventions for
court-involved families: Promoting healthy coping and development (pp. 355–375). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, M.
J., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Legal and psychological management of cases with
an alienated child. Family Court Review, 39(3), 299–315.
Sullivan, M.
J., Ward, P., & Deutsch, R. M. (2010). Overcoming barriers family camp: A
program for high-conflict divorced families where a child is resisting contact with
a parent. Family Court Review, 48(1), 116–135.
Templer, K., Matthewson, M.,
Haines, J., & Cox, G. (2017). Recommendations for best practice in response
to parental alienation: Findings from a systematic review. Journal of Family
Therapy, 39(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12137 Thomas, R.,
& Richardson, J. (2015). Parental alienation syndrome: 30 years on and
still junk science. Judge’s Journal, 54 (3), 22–24.
United
Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (1989). General comment No.
12: The right of the child to be heard. Geneva, Switzerland: Committee on the
Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/CRC-C-GC-12.pdf.
Walters, M.
F., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with
the intractable resist-refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.
Walker, L.
E., & Shapiro, D. L. (2010). Parental alienation disorder: Why label
children with a mental diagnosis? Journal of Child Custody, 7(4), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2010.521041
Walker, L.
E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2004). A critical analysis of
parental alienation syndrome and its admissibility in the family Court. Journal
of Child Custody, 1(2), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J190v01n02_03
World Health
Organization. (2019). Organizational memo re: Inclusion of “Parental
Alienation”
as
a “Caregiver-child
relationship problem.” Code QE52.0 in International Classification of
Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11).
Warshak, R.
A. (2010a). Family Bridges: Using insights from social science to reconnect
parents and alienated children. Family Court Review, 48(1), 48–80.
Warshak, R.
A. (2010b). Alienating audiences from innovation: The perils of polemics,
ideology and innuendo. Family Court Review, 48(1), 153–163.
Warshak, R.
A. (2014). Social science and parenting plans for young children: A consensus
report. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000005
Warshak, R.
A. (2015). Parental alienation: Overview, management, intervention and practice
tips. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 28, 181–247.
Warshak, R. A. (2016). Risks
to professionals who work with troubled and alienated parent-child
relationships. The American
Journal of Family Therapy,
44(3), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2016.1145084
Warshak, R. A. (2020). Risks
and realities of working with alienated children. Family Court Review, 58(2),
432–455.
Janet R.
Johnston, Ph.D., professor emeritus, Department of Justice Studies, San Jose
State University, was formerly a consulting associate professor at Stanford
University and the research director of the Judith Wallerstein Center for the
Family in Transition, California. She is recognized for her three decades of
pioneering work with chronically-disputing, custody-litigating parents and their
children with special attention to family violence, child abduction and
alienated children. Johnston’s empirical research studies and clinical observations are
documented in more than 70 peer-reviewed published papers and in two
co-authored books (Impasses of Divorce and In the Name of the
Child).
Matthew J.
Sullivan, Ph.D., has been in private practice in Palo Alto, California,
specializing in forensic and clinical work in the Family Courts for 30 years.
He is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles, book chapters and books on
topics related to work in high conflict shared custody situations. He
is a pioneer in the development of Parenting Coordination role internationally.
He is currently President of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
(AFCC) international organization. He served on the American Psychological
Association Ethics Committee from 2016–2018. He is the co-founder of
Overcoming Barriers, Inc., which is a non-profit organization that has developed a
variety of innovative programs for high conflict shared custody arrangements.
For more information his website is sullydoc.com.
