November 2021 – PsychLaw Blog

Social Sciences in PA

Posted on November 30, 2021November 30, 2021 by Shawn Wygant

Discussions in the social science literature describe few options for children who suffer severe and unreasonable alienation from a parent and highlight the ineffectiveness of available remedies. For example, Rand, Rand, and Kopetski (2005) reported the failure of traditional psychotherapy in their follow-up study of the 45 children from 25 families Kopetski had studied over 20 years starting in 1976. A range of moderate to severe PAS characterized those cases. Alienation was interrupted by judicial action for 20 children from 12 families where there was enforced visitation or a change of custody. But for those in the treatment group where there were only orders for therapy and gradually increased access, alienation remained uninterrupted and in some cases became worse.

Qualitative case studies and experienced clinicians have found that traditional psychotherapy as the primary intervention simply does not work in severe and even in some moderate alienation cases (Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Dunne & Hedrick, 1994; Gardner, 2001; Kopetski, 1998a, 1998b; Kopetski, Rand, & Rand, 2006; Lampel, 1996; Lowenstein, 2006; Lund, 1995; Rand, 1997b; Rand, Rand, & Kopetski, 2005). Fidler and Bala (2010) concluded that “all severe and some moderate cases of alienation … are likely to require a different and more intrusive approach if the relationship with the rejected parent is not to be abandoned and the alienation is to be successfully corrected.”

A reunification option, short of reversing custody, is for the court to order a prolonged period of residence with the target parent, such as during the summer or an extended vacation, coupled with counseling and temporarily restricted or suspended contact with the alienating parent. This arrangement, which in the long run provides less disruption and greater continuity of care, may in some cases be more appropriate than reversing custody permanently. This period of prolonged residence affords the child and target parent the uninterrupted time and space needed to repair and rebuild their relationship, assuming that the alienating parent either relinquishes their malicious efforts or gives up trying to destroy the target parent’s relationship with the alienated child.

Warshak (2010b) and Warshak and Otis (2010) offered an alternative approach called Family Bridges, in which the target parent and the alienated child travel to a program site – a family home, hotel or vacation resort – for four consecutive days. The alienated children and the target parent share their experiences with one another and re-examine their assumed, indoctrinated false beliefs to which the children have become accustomed. In commenting on Family Bridges, Kelly (2010) wrote that the daily structure and other program components were guided by well-established evidence-based principles and incorporated multimedia learning, positive learning environment, focused lessons addressing relevant concepts, and learning materials providing assistance with integration of materials. She noted that the lessons and materials were drawn from universally accepted research in social, cognitive, and child developmental psychology, sociology, and social neuroscience. Another important feature of Family Bridges, wrote Kelly (2010), is the safe atmosphere created by the program leaders from the very beginning. She saw this as an essential feature of the program that promotes more willing participation and active learning. See Chapter 5 for a more complete discussion of Family Bridges.

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.

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

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.

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

Rand, D. C., Rand, R., & Kopetski, L. (2005). The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome, Part III: The Kopetski Follow-up Study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(1), 15-43.

Kelly, J. B. (2010). Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” (Warshak 2010). Family Court Review, 48(1), 81-90.

Kopetski, L. (1998a). Identifying Cases of Parent Alienation Syndrome, Part I. Colorado Lawyer, 27(2), 65-68.

Kopetski, L. (1998b). Identifying Cases of Parent Alienation Syndrome, Part II. Colorado Lawyer, 27(3), 61-64.

Kopetski, L. M., Rand, D. C., & Rand, R. (2006). Incidence, Gender, and False Allegations of Child Abuse: Data on 84 Parental Alienation Syndrome Cases. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 65-70). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas

Warshak, R. A. (2010a). Alienating Audiences from Innovation: The Perils of Polemics, Ideology, and Innuendo. Family Court Review, 48(1), 153-163.

Warshak, R. A., & Otis, M. R. (2010). Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges: Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition”. Family Court Review, 48(1), 91-97.

What Defines and Outlines Court-Ordered Therapy as Different and Distinct from Traditional Psychotherapy?

Posted on November 24, 2021November 24, 2021 by Shawn Wygant

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) published a document – entitled Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapy (2010) – that defines and outlines court-ordered therapy as different and distinct from traditional psychotherapy. The Guidelines were intended to serve several purposes: to assist members of AFCC and others who provide treatment to court-involved children and families, to assist those who depend on mental health services or on the opinions of MHPs impromoting effective treatment and assessing the quality of treatment services, and to assist the courts to develop clear and effective court orders and parenting plans (p. 1).

In a comprehensive overview of the literature on alienation and mental health professional intervention, Fidler and Bala (2010) concluded that “counseling or psychotherapy tend to be suitable for mild and some moderate cases.” Facing the taxonomic three levels of PA – mild, moderate, and severe – Birnbaum & Radovanovic (1999) and Warshak (2010a) argue for several tiered options of court-ordered therapy. Conventional therapy, they say, is most likely to be effective in early stages with less severe problems and when the alienating parent and child are likely to cooperate.

In any of these levels of severity, MHPs must be prepared for what they will hear from the alienators. Kopetski, Rand, and Rand (2006) listed the primary justification for alienation in each case they studied. They identified 19 different justifications, including: separation anxiety, the child being fearful of the other parent, the child not needing a father, child abuse, spousal abuse, and the child being older and having a right to refuse visits. Some cases involved allegations of child abuse along with other kinds of justifications, such as the mother alleging separation anxiety and sex abuse or the father alleging that the mother was emotionally unstable and neglected the children. There were several cases in which more than one type of child abuse was alleged.

Rumors seemed to occur in every case that Kopetski and her colleagues studied. Rosnow and Foster (2005) explained, “People have a tendency to spread rumors that they perceive as credible (even the most ridiculous stories), although when anxieties are intense, rumormongers are less likely to monitor the logic or plausibility of what they pass on to others.” While rumors are usually untrustworthy and are not ordinarily passed on, Rosnow and Foster found that they are virulent when the person who repeats them “is motivated by some ulterior or devious personal objective.”

MHPs who treat children of divorced parents must remember that many children who participate in court-ordered therapy do so with overt resistance and reluctance. Parents who support or accept their children’s rejection of the other parent usually lack motivation to participate in therapy when the professed goal is to heal the damaged parent-child relationship. Also, therapists are often persuaded by alienated children’s compelling borrowed scenarios. Therapists must understand the power of the alienating parent in economically controlling the continuation of the therapy. An alienating parent may abruptly cease treatment due to spurious reasons, for example, saying the child did not feel comfortable with the therapist. The therapist must be careful to assess false allegations that appear to be justified.

MHPs who begin this work must also be ready to stop it as well. Donner (2006) explained that family therapy, co-parenting counseling, parent education, and cognitive-behavioral therapy may be insufficient to modify the complex behavior of alienating parents. Donner wrote that these parents are unable to think beyond their own needs and may harbor unconscious desires to hurt their children.

Birnbaum, R., & Radovanovic, H. (1999). Brief intervention model for access-based postseparation disputes: Family and court outcomes. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 504

Donner, M. B. (2006). Tearing the child apart: The contributions of narcissism, envy, and perverse modes of thought to child custody wars. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23, 542-551.

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.

Rosnow, R. L., & Foster, E. K. (2005). Rumor and Gossip Research. Psychological Agenda, 19(4).

Who is involved in high conflict custody cases?

Posted on November 17, 2021November 17, 2021 by Shawn Wygant

In this blog we at PsychLaw.net will discuss the different people who are involved in high conflict custody cases as well as situations involving PA. In high-conflict custody cases, attempting to aid the court in its determination of the best interests of the children can be a rewarding, frustrating, and/or thankless task. Evaluators must be cognizant of the interacting dynamics: between the parents, between each parent and the children, between the children and their siblings, between the parents and the children’s network of social support (stepparents, grandparents, friends, parents of friends, school personnel, etc.), and between the parents and their communities. The use of multiple interviews among the interested parties as well as collateral interviews is essential. Repeated interviews of the children with significant members of their social support network may be very important. In high-conflict cases, the children’s sense of themselves and their histories – the stories they tell about themselves – must be carefully scrutinized. Sauber and Worenklein (2012) have addressed the pertinent and unique issues involved in conducting a custody evaluation in alienation cases, particularly the need to dispel false allegations with credible evidence.

Regarding rumors, evaluators must be careful to trace ideas, stories, and allegations back to their origins. Rumors may have their origins in real or imagined happenings. The evaluator considering them must be careful lest they be co-opted into serving an alienator’s purposes. MHPs who perpetuate false information without checking the facts may unwittingly contribute to, rather than alleviate, a family’s distress. In doing so, they become part of the problem (Greenberg, Gould, Gould-Saltman, & Stahl, 2003; Stahl, 2003).

When PA has occurred, the relationship between the parents can be complex and perplexing. Hobbs (2006) reminds us that alienators can be parents of either gender. Also, that evaluators must remember:

[Allegations in the context of PA] comprise severe provocation to the recipient partner. Those allegations are intended to hurt the target parent and to manipulate key others to effect their removal from their children, and these allegations will precipitate anger in response. In fact, they may be expressly designed in order to precipitate an angry response so that the alienating parent can present that successfully provoked anger as further evidence against the target parent (p. 78).

Psychological testing can be very helpful in child custody evaluation when PA is suspected. Bricklin and Elliot (2006) have spent decades scrutinizing children’s sense of their relationships with others. Their diligent work with their Perceptions of Relations Test (PORT) and Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS) provides a detailed and ever expanding database of children caught in high-conflict custody combat. Objective psychological measures such as the ubiquitous MMPI-2 have immediate utility in high-conflict custody evaluations. Siegel and Langford (1998) and Gordon, Stoffey, and Bottinelli (2008) have shown that alienating parents have MMPI-2 profiles that distinguish them from target parents and from parents in custody disputes that do not involve PA.

Perhaps the circumstance where children’s perceptions of relations, multiple interviews, and the use of psychological measures are put to the strictest test is in the evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations in the context of a child custody dispute. One of the earliest reviews of sexual abuse allegations related to custody and visitation disputes was reported by Blush and Ross (1987). Those authors tracked complaints and motions brought to the court by high-conflict parents and they learned to identify what issues provoked parental disputes between the parties and when those disputes originated. They described the SAID (an acronym for “sexual allegations in divorce”) syndrome. Blush and Ross directed evaluators to carefully assess the background and history of a couple before any allegations of sexual abuse developed, which may explainhow escalating exchanges between the disputing parents triggered the sexual abuse allegations. In a similar vein, Wakefield and Underwager (1991) suggest understanding the “natural history” of an allegation, paying close attention to the origin, nature, and timing of the allegation as essential in evaluating its validity and reliability. For a more complete discussion of this topic, see Chapter 6, “Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Context of Custody and Visitation Disputes.”

Blush, G. J., & Ross, K. L. (1987). Sexual allegations in divorce: The SAID syndrome. Conciliation Courts Review, 25(1), 1-11.

Bricklin, B. & Elliot, G. (2006). Psychological test-assisted detection of parental alienation syndrome. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome: Conceptual, clinical and legal considerations, pp. 264-275. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Greenburg, L. R., Gould, J. W., Schnider, R. A., Gould-Saltman, D. J., & Martindale, D. A. (2003). Effective Intervention with High-Conflict Families: How Judges can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court. Journal of the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, 4, 49-65.

Sauber, S. R., & Worenklein, A. (2012). Custody Evaluations in Alienation Cases. In A. J. L. Baker and S. R. Sauber (Eds.),Working With Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. NYC: Routledge.

Siegel, J., & Langford, J. (1998).MMPI-2 Validity Scales and Suspected Parental Alienation Syndrome.American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(4), 5-14.

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1991).Sexual Allegations in Divorce and Custody Disputes.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 451.

Symptoms and Behaviors caused by PA

Posted on November 11, 2021November 11, 2021 by Shawn Wygant

Continuing on with last week’s topic, we at PsychLaw have found that there are two ways to think about the severity of the symptoms or behaviors that are manifested in cases of PA. First, one can consider the level of symptoms manifested by the child who is the victim of PA. The child’s symptoms can be classified as mild, moderate, or severe, depending on the intensity of the child’s refusal to see the target or alienated parent. See Text Box 3 for the definitions of mild, moderate, and severe PA. Second, one can consider the level of alienating behaviors manifested by the parent who is inducing PA in the child. See Text Box 4 for descriptions of mild, moderate, and severe degrees of alienating behaviors. The activities and attitudes of the preferred or alienating parent have also been called “naïve,” “active,” and “obsessed,” respectively (Darnall, 1998, pp 18-22).

It is important to keep in mind that the diagnosis of PA is based on the symptoms and behaviors manifested by the child and the severity of PA is based on the intensity of the symptoms and behaviors manifested by the child. Although generally a child who is subjected to more severe degrees of a parent’s alienating behaviors is likely to manifest a more severe level of PA, that is not always the case. It is possible for a parent who is moderately alienating to induce only a mild degree of PA in a child, for example, if the child previously enjoyed an unusually strong bond with the target parent. On the other hand, it is possible for a parent who is moderately alienating to induce a severe degree of PA in a child, for example, if the child was already somewhat fearful and insecure.

Experienced clinicians have proposed a number of treatments or interventions for PA. As is true for most psychiatric disorders, the appropriate treatment depends on the severity of the condition. See Text Box 3 for the definitions of mild, moderate, and severe PA and a brief explanation of the interventions to consider for each level of severity. While the choice of treatment depends primarily on the level of symptoms in the child, it may also depend on the intensity of the indoctrination and the attitude of the alienating parent. The various treatment approaches tailored to the specific intensity of the PA are described in detail in Chapter 3 (mild PA), Chapter 4 (moderate PA), and Chapter 5 (severe PA).

If PA is so severe that the relationship between the child and the target parent has been totally interrupted for an extended period of time and is characterized by intense anger, fear, frustration, and mutual distrust, a higher level of intervention is called for. This is often called “reunification therapy.” To be successful, reunification therapy is likely to require court sanctions in order to stabilize the relationship between the child and target parent from the ongoing malicious behavior of the alienating parent. Reunification therapy is defined later in this chapter and discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

Prevention and early intervention of PA is also very important. Katherine Andre and Amy Baker (2009) published a prevention approach called I Don’t Want to Choose: How Middle School Kids Can Avoid Choosing One Parent over the Other. It is a structured program for group discussions with children of divorced parents, which can be implemented by school counselors. Early intervention refers to identifying children and families who are at risk for developing PA and who are manifesting some signs and symptoms of that disorder. For example, it is likely that very early cases of PA come to the attention of therapists in private practice and mental health centers who work with children of parents who are headed toward divorce. We at PsychLaw.net believe that as PA becomes better understood by front-line clinicians, they will be able to intervene with parent counseling and psychoeducation at a time when the condition is mild and more treatable. For a list of references click here.

Andre, K., & Baker, A. J. L. (2009). I don’t want to choose: How middle school kids can avoid choosing one parent over the other. New York: The Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection.

Darnall, D. (1998). Divorce casualties: Protecting your children from parental alienation. Lanham, MD: Taylor Publishing Co.

What is the probability that high conflict custody cases will involve PA?

Posted on November 2, 2021November 2, 2021 by Shawn Wygant

Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of PA in high conflict cases vary from study to study. For example, Janet Johnston and her colleagues reported the prevalence of alienation in several studies. Johnston and Campbell (1988) said that alienation was seen in as many as 40% of high conflict cases. Johnston (1993) reported that 7% of the children in one study and 27% of the children in a second study had “strong alignment” with one parent and rejection of the other parent. In 2003, Johnston reported on an “alignment” study. She defined alignment as the “child’s behavioral and verbal preference for one parent with varying degrees of overt or covert negativity toward the other parent.” She found that 15% of children in a community sample of divorcing families and 21% in contested custody cases experienced either “some” or “much” alignment with one parent or the other. In 2005, Johnston, Walters, and Olesen reported rates of PA of about one-fifth of high conflict populations.

Clawar and Rivlin (1991) found that in about 80% of 700 counseling cases, there was some element of parental programming in an effort to implant false and negative ideas about the other parent with the intention of turning the child against that other parent. Their work focused on emotional issues, persistent programming, and brainwashing, which sometimes resulted in severe PA. Leona Kopetski, Deirdre Rand, and Randy Rand (2006) identified PA in 20% of the 413 families they evaluated between 1976 and 1990. Sandra Berns (2001) reported on a study of divorce judgments from 1995 to 2000 in Brisbane, Australia, where PA was found to be present in 29 percent of reviewed cases.

Hetherington and Kelly (2002), in discussing findings from the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage, wrote:

As obviously destructive as conflict is to all involved in this dilemma, it was surprising to discover that six years after divorce, 20 to 25 percent of our couples were engaged in just such conflictual behavior; former spouses would make nasty comments about each other, seek to undermine each other’s relationship with the child, and fight openly in front of the child. Aside from being damaging, constant put-downs of the other parent may backfire, producing resentment and a spirited defense of the criticized parent by the child.… Conflictual coparenting distresses children and undermines their well-being, and it makes parents unhappy, too (p. 138).

Amy Baker (2007b) reported research wherein she surveyed 106 MHPs who conducted custody evaluations. The respondents reported that PAS occurred in as many as 55% of their cases. An average rate over all respondents, whether skilled or unskilled in the differential diagnosis of PAS, was 11.2% (SD = 13). Baker found that the evaluators who identified PAS more frequently were more familiar with the concept of PAS, were more likely to assess for PAS, were more likely to believe that one parent can turn a child against the other parent, and were more confident in their evaluations. In 2009 Bow and colleagues (Bow, Gould,& Flens, 2009) reported on their survey of 448 mental health and legal professionals who were experienced with parental alienation. They wrote, “When respondents were asked [in] what percentage of child custody cases was parental alienation an issue, the mean reported was 26%.”

The great disparity in these results reflects: varying definitions of “parental alienation,” different populations being studied, and different levels of experience in identifying PA. We conclude that some degree of PA (that is, mild, moderate, or severe) occurs in approximately 20-30% of high-conflict separations and divorces.

“Contact refusal” refers to the behavior of a child who avoids spending time with one of his parents. There are many reasons that children may not want to see a parent after separation or divorce. Most authors make a distinction between “estrangement” and “alienation.” Estrangement refers to a child’s rejection of a parent that is justified “as a consequence of the rejected parent’s history of family violence, abuse and neglect” (Johnston, 2005).In contrast, alienation refers to a child’s rejection of a parent that is unjustified, i.e., “unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs…that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent” (Johnston, 2005). With that distinction in mind, estrangement is not a diagnosable mental condition because it is normal behavior. Alienation, on the other hand, is an abnormal mental condition because it consists of maladaptive behavior (refusal to see a loving parent) that is driven by a false or illogical belief (that the target parent is evil, dangerous, or not worthy of love).

The differential diagnosis of contact refusal includes a child’s normal preferences for one parent over the other or one household over the other. The differential diagnosis also includes mental disorders such as separation anxiety disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. The child might properly refuse to visit a parent who has been abusive or very neglectful. The child might be manifesting PA, which could have been brought about by the child’s removing himself from the battle scene by gravitating to one parent and shunning the other, by the accidental indoctrination of a naïve alienator, by the purposeful indoctrination of an active or obsessed alienator, or perhaps because of a shared psychotic disorder with the alienating parent. (See Chapter 2, “The Psychosocial Assessment of Contact Refusal,” for a fuller discussion of this topic.)

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

Berns, S. S. (2001). Parents behaving badly: Parental alienation syndrome in the family court – Magic bullet or poisoned chalice. Australian Journal of Family Law, 15(3), 191-214.

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.

Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Johnston, J. R. (1993). Children of Divorce Who Refuse Visitation. In C. E. Depner & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Non-Residential Parenting: New Vistas in family Living (pp. 109-135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. (1988).Impasses of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Family Conflict. New York, NY: The Free Press.

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), 158-170.

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.