Month: October 2021

This week we at Pychlaw.net will continue to discuss last week’s topic on PA. Future research will likely show that some of the eight criteria are more important than others.  It may be that some criteria will be dropped or modified.  It may be that new criteria will be identified and added.  The criteria for many psychological disorders – including well known conditions such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – have evolved based on the results of extensive field trials and on-going research.

 The child’s symptoms that define PA – refusal to see one of the parents, a campaign of denigration, hatred that is unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances, etc. – are usually just the tip of an iceberg of maladaptive attitudes and destructive behaviors.  PA is a powerful psychosocial force that leads the child to develop comorbid emotional problems, troublesome and often deviant behaviors, and impaired interpersonal relationships.  Mental diagnoses often are identified in alienated children including conduct disorders, mood disorders, substance abuse, and personality disturbances.

Johnston, Walters, and Olesen (2005) found that “alienated children had more emotional and behavioral problems of clinically significant proportions compared to their non alienated counterparts.”  Johnston (2005) said that alienated children “are likely to be more troubled – more emotionally dependent, less socially competent, have problematic self-esteem (either low or defensively high), poor reality testing, lack the capacity for ambivalence, and are prone to enmeshment or splitting in relations with others.”  She also noted:

Severely alienated children also are likely to manifest serious conduct disorders and can behave very inappropriately, at least in the presence of the rejected parent. Extreme expressions of hatred, rage, contempt, and hostility can be acted out in rudeness, swearing, and cursing, hanging up the phone, spitting at or striking a parent, sabotaging or destroying property, stealing, lying, and spying on the rejected parent.

                        

Summarizing a great deal of the research, Fidler and Bala (2010) explained that data consistently shows that alienated children are at risk for emotional distress and adjustment difficulties and at much greater risk than children from litigating families who are not alienated.  They reported that clinical observations, case reviews, and both qualitative and empirical studies uniformly indicate that alienated children may exhibit: poor reality testing, illogical cognitive operations, simplistic and rigid information processing, inaccurate or distorted interpersonal perceptions, disturbed and compromised interpersonal functioning, self-hatred, low self-esteem or inflated self-esteem or omnipotence, pseudo-maturity, gender-identity problems, poor differentiation of self or enmeshed relationships, aggression and conduct disorders; disregard for social norms and authority, poor impulse control, emotional constriction, passivity, or dependency, and lack of remorse or guilt. 

 The principle that family-of-origin relations influence future relationships and life adjustment is the foundation of several schools of developmental psychology.  There are many studies that document long-term psychological damage associated with alienation and estrangement.   Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) exclaimed that they had “seen a great deal of evidence that Medea-like anger severely injures children at every age.”  They added:

When one or both parents act the Medea role, children are affected for years to come.  Some grow up with warped consciences, having learned how to manipulate people as the result of their parents’ behavior.  Some grow up with enormous rage, having understood that they were used as weapons.  Some grow up guilty, with low self-esteem and recurrent depression. (p. 196)

                                                                                                                        

       Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). The Psychological Functioning of Alienated Children in Custody Disputing Families: An Exploratory Study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(3), 39-64. 

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. 

  Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce. New York, NY: Ticknor & Fields.

After reviewing 700 cases of family counseling, mediation, and forensic evaluation, Clawar and Rivlin (1991) identified and described the following techniques in the PA context they termed brainwashing: denying and not acknowledging the social existence of the other parent; attacking something about the character, life-style, past, present, or future of the target parent; discussing visitation arrangements with the child, thus pressuring the child to make a choice; failing to inform the other parent of educational, social, and religious functions, thus communicating that the other parent lacks importance; creating or exaggerating differences between themselves and the other parent in front of the children; asking the children to ally their sympathies and support with the alienating parent; making moral judgments regarding the target parent’s values, life-style, friends, etc.; implicitly or explicitly threatening to withdraw affection if the child expresses a desire to be with the other parent; creating the belief that the other parent is not sincere in his or her love for the child; creating the belief that the other parent is unable to properly care for the child; and convincing the child to doubt his or her ability to perceive reality (pp. 15-36).

Amy Baker (2007a) studied adults who said they had been alienated as children from one of their parents.  She asked the subjects to describe the strategies that the alienating parent had used to bring about the PA.  Baker said that 40% or more of her adult subjects reported the following alienating strategies when they were children: general bad-mouthing of the target parent by the alienating parent; limiting contact with the target parent; anger and withdrawal of love following visitation with the target parent; telling the child the target parent does not love him or her; forcing the child to choose one parent over the other; bad-mouthing specifically to create the impression that the target parent is dangerous; and confiding in the child about adult relationships (p. 64).

Gulotta and Liberatore (2008) in Italy conducted psycholinguistic analyses of the statements of alienated children and the dialogue between the children and the alienating parents.  They provided many examples of the subtle and not-so-subtle messages that an alienating parent might communicate to a child.

In some cases, one or both parents make false allegations of physical or sexual abuse in order to prevent the other parent from obtaining custody or access to the children. These cases usually involve several reports to child protection authorities and the police about the alleged abuse. In some cases, both parents make allegations of abuse against each other, but more frequently it is only one parent who makes a false claim of sexual or physical abuse of a child. 

Although domestic violence typically includes physical aggression or assault, such as hitting, kicking, shoving, and slapping, it may also involve sexual abuse, emotional abuse, severe neglect, and economic deprivation.  Whatever the manifestation of domestic violence, the underlying theme is that the perpetrator controls and dominates his or her victim.  In addition to controlling the spouse or domestic partner, the perpetrator of domestic violence often endeavors to control their children also.  After the couple separates or divorces, the perpetrator may continue to control the children and alienate them from the former partner as a way to punish him or her.

Peter Jaffe and his colleagues have been most active in pointing out that aspect of PA.  Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, and Bala (2008) wrote:

Abusive ex-partners are likely to attempt to alienate the children from the other parent’s affection (by asserting blame for the dissolution of the family and telling negative stories), sabotage family plans (by continuing criticism or competitive bribes), and undermine parental authority (by explicitly instructing the children not to listen or obey). 

Also, Warshak (2010b) described a pattern he observed in families that featured coercive control and domination; i.e., a parent continues harassing and controlling the ex-partner by manipulating the children to turn against the victim parent.  

Authors in many countries have explained how a person who induces a child to experience PA is perpetrating child abuse.  For example, Gardner (1998) wrote: “Whether such parents are aware of the negative impact on the child, these behaviors of the aligned parent (and his or her supporters) constitute emotional abuse of the child.” Janet Johnston and Joan Kelly (2004) agreed on the issue of alienation as abuse, referring to PA as “an insidious form of emotional abuse of children that can be inflicted by divorced parents.”

A professional organization of child neurologists and psychiatrists in Italy offered:

Psychological abuse includes: acts of rejection, psychological terrorism, exploitation, isolation and removal of the child from the social context…. A further form of psychological abuse may be the alienation of a parent figure by the other parent…in “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” (Società Italiana di Neuropsichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza, 2007, p. 10)

A psychologist in the Republic of South Africa wrote:

Involvement of mental health professionals who have no insight into PAS may exacerbate matters. The longer the time spent with the alienating parent, the more likely the process of alienation will be consolidated.  It is suggested that PAS be recognized as a form of child abuse; accordingly custody may be awarded to the innocent party, with sanctions potentially applied against the alienating party. (Szabo, 2002). 

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

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. 

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

Gulotta, G., Cavedon, A., & Liberatore, M. (2008). La Sindrome di Alienazione Parentale (PAS): Lavaggio del cervello e programmazione dei figli in danno dell’altro genitore. [The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS): Brainwashing and Programming of Children to the Detriment of the Other Parent] [Italian]. Milan: Giuffrè

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J.R., Crooks, C.V. & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differential approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review 46(3):500-23.

Szabo, C. P. (2002).  Parental alienation syndrome.South African Psychiatry Review, 5(3):1. 

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