Month: September 2021

Sources of confusion regarding the definition of PA

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

There are two sources of confusion regarding the definition of PA that we at PsychLaw.net have gathered.  The first is that various authors have used different terms and phrases for the phenomenon that we call “parental alienation.”  Second, various authors use the term “parental alienation” to identify different, but related, behaviors.

For example, some authors use “parental alienation” to name the indoctrination and brain-washing maneuvers of the alienating parent and “parental alienation syndrome” to name the resulting mental condition of the child.  Douglas Darnall (2010), for instance, wrote that a definition of PA is: 

A parent’s purposeful campaign of vilification characterized by anger, resistant and inconsistent compliance with court orders, conscious or unconscious denigration of the child’s other parent, and interference with the other parent/child relationship (pp. 5-6). 

Gardner (2006) made a different distinction between “parental alienation” and “parental alienation syndrome.”  He said that “parental alienation” referred to all types of impaired relationship between parent and child: 

[Parental alienation] can be caused by parental physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect.… A child can also be programmed by one parent to be alienated from another.  That particular category of parental alienation is generally referred to as parental alienation syndrome. (p. 6)

Gardner (2002) also criticized the use of “parental alienation” in court testimony as a watered-down synonym for “parental alienation syndrome.” Garrity and Baris (1994) used “parental alienation” and “parental alienation syndrome” synonymously.  They wrote:

Parental alienation is very real. It occurs when one parent convinces the children that the other parent is not trustworthy, lovable, or caring – in short, not a good parent. This persuasion may be consciously malicious and intended to destroy the children’s relationship with the other parent. Or it may take a more insidious, even unconscious form arising from the personality issues as yet unresolved in the childhood of one parent (p. 66).

There are several psychosocial pathways to PA.  The most common is that the alienating parent indoctrinates the child to dislike and/or fear the target parent. Although PA most often arises in the context of a dispute between the parents over the child’s custody, it can arise during the course of other types of conflicts, such as a dispute between a parent and a grandparent.  Other family members – such as stepparents or grandparents – may contribute to the creation of PA.  On occasion, other individuals – such as therapists and child protection workers – may cause PA to occur by encouraging or supporting the child’s refusal to have contact with the alienated parent (Hellblom Sjögren, 2012).

PA almost always arises in the context of intense conflict between the target parent and somebody else.  In circumstances of persistent, passionate conflict, it is possible that a child may develop a mild level of PA even without active brain-washing by one of the parents.  That is, “parental alienation without indoctrination” can occur when the child gravitates to one parent and shuns the other parent in order to remove himself from the “war zone of parental battles” (Bernet, 1995, pp. 41-46).  However, a common characteristic of severe levels of PA is “intentionality.”  As Sauber repeatedly asserts, it is never “unintentional,” “accidental,” or “naïve” behavior by the alienating parent that leads to a full-blown case of severe PA (Sauber, 2006).

We agree with Kelly and Johnston (2001) that PA may be caused by an interaction of several psychosocial processes.  The target parent may contribute in some way to the child’s rejection.  For example, the target parent may lack an involved, warm style of nurturance.  He or she may have devoted insufficient time to parenting activities.  However, for the diagnosis of PA, the intensity and duration of the child’s refusal to have contact with the target parent is far out of proportion to the relatively minor weaknesses in that person’s parenting skills.

Since PA usually occurs in the context of high-conflict separation or divorce, it is important to have an understanding of the meaning of “high-conflict.”  That topic was extensively reviewed by Glenn Gilmour (2004) in a background paper, “High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration,” that he prepared for the Canadian Department of Justice.  Gilmour summarized:

In short, the literature indicates that parental conflict is a major source of harm to children, whether the children are in intact families or their parents have separated or divorced.  Children whose parents have separated or divorced where there is a high level of conflict between the parents display greater behavioural problems than children from low- or medium-conflict divorced families (p. 16).

Gilmour sought to arrive at a behavioral or operational definition of “high-conflict separation or divorce.”  He reviewed several articles and book chapters that identified external markers of high conflict, including: a book by Johnston, Roseby, and Kuehnle, In the Name of the Child (now in its second edition, 2009); a book by Garrity and Baris, Caught in the Middle (1994); and a review by Ron Stewart, The Early Identification and Streaming of Cases of High-Conflict Separation and Divorce (2001).  The features of high-conflict separation and divorce listed in Text Box 1 are based on those references.

 

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

 

This list is based on Garrity and Baris (1994), Gilmour (2004), Johnston, Roseby, and Kuehnle (2009), and Stewart(2001). 

Darnall, D. (2010). Beyond divorce casualties: Reunifying the alienated family. Taylor Trade Publishing. 

 

Gardner, R. A. (2002).  PAS vs. PA: Which diagnosis should evaluators use in child custody disputes?  Am. J. Family Therapy 30(2), 93-116. 

Gardner, R. A. (2006). Introduction. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome: Conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 5-11). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

Garrity, C., & Baris, M. (1994). Caught in the Middle: Protecting the Children of High-Conflict Divorce. Toronto, ON: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, Inc. 

Gilmour, G. A. (2004). High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada (2004-FCY-1E). 

Hellblom Sjögren, L. (2012).  Barnet avskiljs från sina föräldar, omhändertas jml LVU och påverkas att ta avstånd från dem båda (The child is separated from its parents, taken into forced custody and is influenced to reject them both)(Swedish).  In: Barnets rätt till familjeliv: 25 svenska fallstudier av föräldraalienation (The Child’s Right to Family Life: 25 Swedish Case Studies of Parental Alienation), pages 339-376.  Lund, Sweden: Studentilleratur. 

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review, 39, 249-266

Sauber, S. R. (2006). PAS as a Family Tragedy: Roles of Family Members, Professionals, and the Justice System. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Sources of confusion regarding the definition of PA

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

There are two sources of confusion regarding the definition of PA that we at PsychLaw.net have gathered.  The first is that various authors have used different terms and phrases for the phenomenon that we call “parental alienation.”  Second, various authors use the term “parental alienation” to identify different, but related, behaviors.

For example, some authors use “parental alienation” to name the indoctrination and brain-washing maneuvers of the alienating parent and “parental alienation syndrome” to name the resulting mental condition of the child.  Douglas Darnall (2010), for instance, wrote that a definition of PA is: 

A parent’s purposeful campaign of vilification characterized by anger, resistant and inconsistent compliance with court orders, conscious or unconscious denigration of the child’s other parent, and interference with the other parent/child relationship (pp. 5-6). 

Gardner (2006) made a different distinction between “parental alienation” and “parental alienation syndrome.”  He said that “parental alienation” referred to all types of impaired relationship between parent and child: 

[Parental alienation] can be caused by parental physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect.… A child can also be programmed by one parent to be alienated from another.  That particular category of parental alienation is generally referred to as parental alienation syndrome. (p. 6)

Gardner (2002) also criticized the use of “parental alienation” in court testimony as a watered-down synonym for “parental alienation syndrome.” Garrity and Baris (1994) used “parental alienation” and “parental alienation syndrome” synonymously.  They wrote:

Parental alienation is very real. It occurs when one parent convinces the children that the other parent is not trustworthy, lovable, or caring – in short, not a good parent. This persuasion may be consciously malicious and intended to destroy the children’s relationship with the other parent. Or it may take a more insidious, even unconscious form arising from the personality issues as yet unresolved in the childhood of one parent (p. 66).

There are several psychosocial pathways to PA.  The most common is that the alienating parent indoctrinates the child to dislike and/or fear the target parent. Although PA most often arises in the context of a dispute between the parents over the child’s custody, it can arise during the course of other types of conflicts, such as a dispute between a parent and a grandparent.  Other family members – such as stepparents or grandparents – may contribute to the creation of PA.  On occasion, other individuals – such as therapists and child protection workers – may cause PA to occur by encouraging or supporting the child’s refusal to have contact with the alienated parent (Hellblom Sjögren, 2012).

PA almost always arises in the context of intense conflict between the target parent and somebody else.  In circumstances of persistent, passionate conflict, it is possible that a child may develop a mild level of PA even without active brain-washing by one of the parents.  That is, “parental alienation without indoctrination” can occur when the child gravitates to one parent and shuns the other parent in order to remove himself from the “war zone of parental battles” (Bernet, 1995, pp. 41-46).  However, a common characteristic of severe levels of PA is “intentionality.”  As Sauber repeatedly asserts, it is never “unintentional,” “accidental,” or “naïve” behavior by the alienating parent that leads to a full-blown case of severe PA (Sauber, 2006).

We agree with Kelly and Johnston (2001) that PA may be caused by an interaction of several psychosocial processes.  The target parent may contribute in some way to the child’s rejection.  For example, the target parent may lack an involved, warm style of nurturance.  He or she may have devoted insufficient time to parenting activities.  However, for the diagnosis of PA, the intensity and duration of the child’s refusal to have contact with the target parent is far out of proportion to the relatively minor weaknesses in that person’s parenting skills.

Since PA usually occurs in the context of high-conflict separation or divorce, it is important to have an understanding of the meaning of “high-conflict.”  That topic was extensively reviewed by Glenn Gilmour (2004) in a background paper, “High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration,” that he prepared for the Canadian Department of Justice.  Gilmour summarized:

In short, the literature indicates that parental conflict is a major source of harm to children, whether the children are in intact families or their parents have separated or divorced.  Children whose parents have separated or divorced where there is a high level of conflict between the parents display greater behavioural problems than children from low- or medium-conflict divorced families (p. 16).

Gilmour sought to arrive at a behavioral or operational definition of “high-conflict separation or divorce.”  He reviewed several articles and book chapters that identified external markers of high conflict, including: a book by Johnston, Roseby, and Kuehnle, In the Name of the Child (now in its second edition, 2009); a book by Garrity and Baris, Caught in the Middle (1994); and a review by Ron Stewart, The Early Identification and Streaming of Cases of High-Conflict Separation and Divorce (2001).  The features of high-conflict separation and divorce listed in Text Box 1 are based on those references.

 

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

 

This list is based on Garrity and Baris (1994), Gilmour (2004), Johnston, Roseby, and Kuehnle (2009), and Stewart(2001). 

Darnall, D. (2010). Beyond divorce casualties: Reunifying the alienated family. Taylor Trade Publishing. 

 

Gardner, R. A. (2002).  PAS vs. PA: Which diagnosis should evaluators use in child custody disputes?  Am. J. Family Therapy 30(2), 93-116. 

Gardner, R. A. (2006). Introduction. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome: Conceptual, clinical and legal considerations (pp. 5-11). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

Garrity, C., & Baris, M. (1994). Caught in the Middle: Protecting the Children of High-Conflict Divorce. Toronto, ON: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, Inc. 

Gilmour, G. A. (2004). High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada (2004-FCY-1E). 

Hellblom Sjögren, L. (2012).  Barnet avskiljs från sina föräldar, omhändertas jml LVU och påverkas att ta avstånd från dem båda (The child is separated from its parents, taken into forced custody and is influenced to reject them both)(Swedish).  In: Barnets rätt till familjeliv: 25 svenska fallstudier av föräldraalienation (The Child’s Right to Family Life: 25 Swedish Case Studies of Parental Alienation), pages 339-376.  Lund, Sweden: Studentilleratur. 

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review, 39, 249-266

Sauber, S. R. (2006). PAS as a Family Tragedy: Roles of Family Members, Professionals, and the Justice System. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

PA: A serious mental condition

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

We at PsychLaw.net know that parental alienation (PA) is a serious mental condition that affects hundreds of thousands of children and families in the United States and comparable numbers in other countries.  Mental health professionals (MHPs), family law attorneys, and everyday citizens observe PA on a regular basis, even if they do not know that the phenomenon has a name, where it comes from, or what to do about it.  PA is not new. PA has been observed for many decades and has been described and discussed in the scientific literature of MHPs, in legal literature and precedents, and in popular literature – although the condition has been called a variety of names other than “parental alienation.”  

PA is a mental condition in which a child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict separation or divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with an alienating parent and rejects a relationship with the target parent without legitimate justification.

Several features of the definition should be noted. PA can be conceptualized as a mental condition of the child (e.g., the child has a false belief that the rejected or “target” parent is evil, dangerous, or not worthy of love) or an aberration in the relationship between the child and the rejected, target parent (e.g., absence of communication and camaraderie between child and parent, even though they previously enjoyed a loving, nurturing relationship).  We refer to “separation or divorce” because PA often occurs prior to legal divorce and in families in which the parents were never married in the first place.  PA may occur in high-conflict marriages when the parents are still living in the same household.  It is essential to recognize that the child’s rejection of the target parent is without legitimate justification.  If a parent was abusive or severely neglectful, the child’s rejection of that parent is understandable or legitimate and does not constitute PA. It is best to follow the convention of most writers, who use “estrangement” to refer to warranted rejection of a parent and “alienation” to refer to unwarranted rejection. Finally, we realize that the target parent may not be a typically “perfect” mother or father and that the target parent may have contributed in some way to the child’s dislike of him or her.  However, the essential feature of PA is that the child’s rejection of the target parent is far out of proportion to anything that parent has done to justify the rejection.

In the last eight decades, various authors have described the phenomenon of PA, but have provided different names for it.  For example, Wilhelm Reich (1945) wrote that many divorced parents defend themselves against what he called “narcissistic” injury by fighting for custody of their children. He found that parents who experienced narcissistic injury often defamed each other and did so in front of the children.  Louise Despert (1953) said, “It is a sharp temptation for the parent who remains with the child to break down their love for the one who has gone” (p. 52).  Jack Westman and his colleagues (1970) wrote that a “pattern is found in which one parent and a child team up to provide an effect on the other parent. In these cases one parent appears to deliberately undermine the other through a child.”

Despert, J. L. (1953). Children of Divorce. New York: Doubleday. 

Reich, Wilhelm (1945, 2006). Charakteranalyse [Character Analysis] [German] (8th ed.).  Cologne, Germany: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. 

Westman, J. C., Cline, D. W., Swift, W. J., & Kramer, D. A. (1970). Role of Child Psychiatry in Divorce. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23(5), 416-420. 

The History of PA

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

 The folks here at PsychLaw know how crucial the role of the court is in PA cases. While the behavioral sciences have been concerned with PA for the last seventy years, PA has been identified in legal proceedings for more than two hundred years.  Stephens (2009) documented cases of PA all the way back to the 18th century in England.  There has been much criticism for many years regarding the handling of PA cases in court – with the criticism ranging from the adversarial nature of law itself to the rules and policies of many courts to the behavior of individual judges.  Many mental health and legal writers have expressed concern regarding: absence of active case management, legal disputes that continue for months and years, litigation that unnecessarily escalates conflict, litigation that encourages the children to gravitate to one parent and shun the other parent, and repeated violations of orders go unpunished so parents make a mockery of the court’s authority. 

Several judges in the U.S. and Canada have been outspoken in their suggestions for how to reduce the trauma of PA.  For example, Judge Michele Lowrance (2010) of Chicago stresses the corrosive power of anger in these circumstances and works to redirect it.  Justice Donna Martinson (2010) of British Columbia argued that “several steps are necessary in order to maintain the focus on the best interests of the children and move the case to a resolution in a just, timely and affordable way” including: early identification of the high conflict cases; setting, right at the start, firm rules about the expected conduct of the parents toward the litigation, the children and each other; setting a time frame within which the case must be concluded; and setting a schedule within the time frame for all the steps that must be taken before a solution can be reached including any necessary psychological or other assessments.

In cases involving PA, case management is important.  Bala, Fidler, Goldberg, and Houston (2007) wrote:

It is important for judges to take control of alienation cases, to limit the possibility of manipulating the court process by the parents, and to ensure a firm and quick response to violations of court orders. These are cases for which judicial case management is especially appropriate.  

In cases involving PA, therapeutic jurisprudence may be very effective.  Sauber (2006) pointed out that the court has the power and the influence – even more than the psychologist, psychiatrist, mental health counselor, social worker, or family therapist – to moderate or alleviate PA.  Fidler and Bala (2010) wrote, “In many alienation cases, the education, coaching, and threats or encouragement of a judge can be a prime motivator for change. Many times in these circumstances, we see children adapt to firm court orders.”  

In cases involving PA it is important to set limits, which may require extreme measures.  That may take the form of contempt citations, imposed supervised contact, a reversal of custodial arrangements, and suspension of visitations with the indoctrinating parent.  Sauber (2006) wrote, “It takes ‘guts’ for a judge to order this reversal even if the evidence is compelling, knowing how much the children will ‘hate’ and protest living with the ‘despised’ parent” (p. 15).

In cases involving PA, environmental changes may be very effective in helping children overcome unreasonable negative attitudes.  Several authors describing their qualitative research using case studies have reported on the benefits of changing custody or enforced parenting time in severe alienation cases. For example, Clawar and Rivlin (1991) reported an improvement in children’s relationships with rejected parents in 90 percent of 400 cases where an increase in the child’s contact with the target parent was court ordered.  They wrote:

Children may say, “I hate her. I’ll never speak with her if you make me go see her,” “I’ll run away,” or “I’ll kill myself if he comes to see me.” However, in some cases, children were told to say these things by the programming and brainwashing parent…. It is not uncommon to see these threats disintegrate after court orders change (p. 144).

Today, there is general recognition that a reversal of custody may be warranted in severe cases (Drozd & Olesen, 2009; Johnston & Goldman, 2010; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009; Warshak, 2010b).  

Bala, N., Fidler, B. J., Goldberg, D., & Houston, C. (2007). Alienated children and parental separation: Legal responses in Canada’s family courts. Queen’s Law Journal, 33, 79-138.

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage: Dealing with programmed and brainwashed children. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Section of Family Law. 

Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W. (2009). When a child rejects a parent. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

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. 

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, 112-115. 

Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the Name of the Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. 

Lowrance, M. (2010). The Good Karma Divorce. New York: Harper Collins. 

Martinson, D. J. (2010). One Case – One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict cases. Family Court Review, 48(1), 180-189. 

Sauber, S. R. (2006). PAS as a Family Tragedy: Roles of Family Members, Professionals, and the Justice System. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

Stephens, R. (2009).  A Historical Perspective on Parental Alienation and Child Custody Disputes: 1760-Present.  Unpublished manuscript. 

Warshak, R. A. (2010b). Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated          Children. Family Court Review, 48, 48-80.