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.