A Continuation of our multiple part series discussing a case of PA and how it was handled in court.

After counsel’s researcher interviews Richard for many hours, Richard mentions as an aside that he is concerned about Jane because she was coping during the last months of the marriage by drinking more.  The researcher points out in the next defense team meeting that counsel must look into Jane’s drinking.  Counsel should ask the defense team expert to communicate with Richard’s therapist and explore Richard’s denial and whether Richard and Jane have been in a “negotiated maladjustment contract.”   This is a concept that grew out of marital therapy research.  It pre-dates the notion of “co-dependence” and holds that in return for behaviors that meet the compelling needs of both partners, one or both of them perform behaviors that are self-injurious, deviant, or maladaptive (Carson, 1969; Gehrke & Moxom, 1969).  Additionally, Richard’s therapist should be asked to deal with Richard’s lack of efficient thinking, inability to focus, anxiety, and multiplicity of storylines.  The goal of pushing Richard’s therapy is to confront his denial, prepare him for two – maybe three – trials and help him be more effective in developing a plan for Adrian.  As part of his recovery from this temporary disaster, Richard should be encouraged to go into “research mode.”  Counsel should encourage him to begin by studying the famous abuse cases of the ‘80’s and ‘90’s – McMartin, Kern County, Kelly Michaels, and Wenatchee. Richard should watch Sean Penn’s documentary Witch Hunt and learn how 

the manipulation of the children in the Kern County, California, case was done (Penn, 2008).

In the family case, Jane and her attorney are insisting upon the exclusive use of the marital home. Jane and Steven, one of the therapists at Richard’s clinic, have entered into an agreement to keep the clinic operating without Richard. Counsel’s investigator and researcher should be charged with looking into whether Jane and Steven might have a deeper relationship.  As the researcher works on the chronology with Richard and the defense team expert, they realize that because Richard was in school for the last four years and working part time, Richard was the one around Adrian the most. Jane left for work at 7:30 AM, and was not home until at least 4:30 PM – sometimes not until 7:30 or 8:00 PM.  This information should also go to Richard’s therapist, to aid in pushing on Richard’s denial.

Having been ordered to mandatory mediation, Jane and Richard file their narratives for the custody mediator. Jane’s narrative describes Jane as the primary caregiver for Adrian. Jane claims that she is the best candidate for the role of single parent for the child, and that she is more responsible. Jane accuses Richard of being a mama’s boy, dependent upon his parents to prop him up and extricate him from any messes.  To counter this expected gambit, counsel has been vigorously conducting discovery in the family case, and the private investigator has uncovered several disciplinary actions against Jane at the high school where she teaches. These disciplinary actions were for tardiness, for absenteeism, and suspicion of intoxication. Richard is shocked – he had no inkling of the depths of Jane’s problem.  Counsel’s private investigator finds that Jane’s relationship with Steven, the clinic therapist, has developed. Jane has begun attending support groups for “mistreated women” with Steven’s sister Janice, a militant advocate for abused women.  Jane complains to Janice about the “inconclusive” finding from Adrian’s pediatrician that in three years of caring for Adrian, she’s never seen indications of abuse.  Steven’s sister Janice refers Jane to a physician who is more oriented to their point of view.  This physician has developed a reputation in the state for finding indications of abuse in little girls and boys.  In the physical exam, Jane tells the physician that Adrian has often complained of being hurt by Daddy.  The physician examines Jane’s  photographs of Adrian’s facial injuries and repeatedly asks the child how many times Daddy has hurt her. One should remember what the philosopher Goethe taught: “We look for what we know. We find what we look for.”  In next week’s blog we will be concluding the discussion on this topic.

Carson, R. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine. 

Gehrke, S. and Moxom, J. (1969) Diagnostic Classifications and Treatment  

Techniques in Marriage Counseling. Family Process, 1(2), 253-264. 

Penn, S. (Producer) (2008). Witch hunt

The illustrating and presenting of a case based upon parental alienation syndrome behaviors.

In this blog we at PsychLaw.net will use a vignette throughout to illustrate the planning, preparation and presentation of a case based upon parental alienation syndrome behaviors.  The vignette will encompass a criminal, custody and licensure case.  Where significant marital assets and/or clients with professional backgrounds are involved, counsel must anticipate a “three ringed circus.”

David Connelly and his ex-wife Susan arrive for their appointment with counsel. David is a 60-year-old CEO in manufacturing. Susan moved to Massachusetts after they amicably split, and she now works as a pharmaceutical representative. David and Susan have come to the appointment together because their son Richard has been arrested for physical abuse and criminal neglect of a minor. Richard has recently graduated with a master’s degree in social work from an expensive university and opened a private clinic. His soon-to-be ex-wife Jane is a high school teacher who has gone to divorce court and based on the arrest, secured a restraining order to keep Richard out of his home and away from Adrian, their 3-year-old daughter.  The child has a vivid welt on the right side of her face and a black eye.  Jane has pictures and she’s posted them on her Facebook page.  The Connellys inform the council that, because of the arrest, the Board of Social Work and Richard’s malpractice insurance carrier have advised him that he may not see clients until the criminal charges are resolved. This is particularly galling for David and Susan, because when Richard graduated, they helped him buy a building so that Richard could establish the clinic with two partners. One false allegation and Richard has lost his home, his daughter, his marriage, his clinic, and as Jane’s attorney claims that the building in which the clinic is located is a marital asset – Jane wants that too. Not only is there a criminal case to fight, but Richard must also fight in divorce court, with Children’s Protective Services (CPS), with the Social Work Licensure Board, and with his malpractice carrier. With tears in his eyes, David exclaims that Richard would never hurt Adrian, takes out his checkbook, and begs counsel to save his son and only grandchild.

Building awareness in counsel’s office In PA cases

The second strategy is to build awareness in counsel’s office among members of the defense team of the process of parental alienation (PA).  

The defense team must organize all data to explicate PA. The diagnostic criteria include a campaign of denigration against the target parent by the child; frivolous rationalizations by the child for their criticism of the target parent; a lack of ambivalence in the child over their description and treatment of the target parent; a manifestation referred to as “the independent-thinker phenomenon” by the child where by she says her denigration is all her own idea; reflexive support by the child of the preferred parent against the target parent; an absence of guilt in the child over their exploitation and mistreatment of the target parent; a demonstration of borrowed scenarios from the alienating parent by the child; a notable spread of animosity toward the target parent’s extended family by the child.  These are all described in greater detail in Chapter One of this text. 

Fidler and Bala (2010a) reported that clinical observations, case reviews and qualitative as well as empirical studies indicated 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 (enmeshment); 
  • aggression and conduct disorders; 
  • disregard for social norms and authority; 
  • poor impulse control; 
  • emotional constriction, passivity, or dependency; and 
  • lack of remorse or guilt.  

All of these characteristics should be kept in mind and wherever possible, proofs and witness charts oriented to demonstrating their occurrence in Adrian.

Next, counsel must visit Richard in jail and get his signature on the retainer agreement. From past experience, counsel is aware that many clients cannot handle the pressures of cases like these (much less on all fronts, as Richard is facing).  Counsel must make sure that Richard does not cave to the pressure and begin “explaining” himself to willing listeners. Clearly Richard is desperate to explain the narrowly averted auto accident, the panicked stop, and the origin of Adrian’s black eye.  He is abject in his self-recrimination because Adrian’s seatbelt was not properly fastened.  Counsel must take the time to listen to Richard and to be compassionate, because his entire life is falling apart and this is not conducive to sane behavior.  Counsel must listen carefully to Richard’s recitation of Adrian’s colliding with the rear passenger door post but remind him that jail is not the place for conversation.  He must keep his mouth shut. He may not talk to anyone other than counsel because there may be prosecution “plants” in jail. Remind him that conversations are often recorded and of course there may be defendants in jail who will relate conversations in hopes of a deal in their own case.  Counsel must explain to Richard that the discovery available in the family law case in the form of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, examinations, and depositions will save his life.  The family case discovery must be utilized in this fashion and the criminal case won.  The criminal case must be counsel’s most important priority.  

Counsel should begin legal research with the excellent treatise, Right to Present a Defense. This is an ongoing web document continually updated by National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers contributor Mark J. Mahoney (2009).  While it is aimed at criminal defense, the relevancy arguments concerning the right to tell one’s own story is of great value in custody or dependency cases as well. Counsel should be mindful that the court might not be aware of state and sister-state precedent on salient issues.  Counsel must think through relevant legal issues, prepare points and authorities to use if need be at trial and set one’s sights on diligently making a record for review. To aid in this endeavor, counsel should download and then conform to their state-specific precedent motions available from Thomson-Reuters WEST’s two volume Cross Examining Experts in the Behavioral Sciences (Campbell & Lorandos, 2001, updated annually). Special attention should be spent on Daubert or Frye challenges, taint motions asserting that a child’s memory is compromised (therefore she cannot testify from “personal knowledge”), and motions to defeat “outcry” (the always questionable hearsay testimony from adults who have allegedly heard a child’s complaints).  Again, these are available to counsel from PsychLaw.net, the NACDL and The Innocence Team in California.  After bond, counsel should demand a preliminary examination and file detailed motions for discovery in both the family and criminal cases. All of the immediate discovery battles, subpoenas, and depositions must be diligently fought in the family case, as most jurisdictions do not allow depositions in criminal cases.

Counsel must immediately contact the Board of Social Work to let them know that Richard has representation.  Counsel must research and push “prior restraint” with the Social Work Board.  As Richard is innocent until proven guilty, the Social Work Board should not have the mandate to restrain Richard from working until after adjudication.  If they are reluctant to negotiate, counsel should file against the Social Work Board in Federal Court, as Richard’s license and ability to work is a property right.  If possible, counsel should negotiate that Richard at least be allowed to see adult patients in a supervised setting.  Counsel should use the defense team expert and her connections to help Richard find a clinic in which he can get back to work immediately. For a continuation of this topic please come back next week where we will further dive into this discussion. 

Campbell, T. W. & Lorandos, D. (2001) Cross Examining Experts in the 

Behavioral Sciences, Egan, Minnesota, West Group – Two Volumes – annual updates ~ April 2011 

Fidler, B. J. & Bala, N. (2010a). Children Resisting Post-Separation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums. Family Court Review, 48(1), 10-47. 

Maloney, M. J. (2009). The right to present a defense. Retrieved from http://www.harringtonmahoney.com/documents/Rtpad2009 v1.pdf  

PA as a mental condition

In this blog, we at PsychLaw.net believe parental alienation (PA) refers to 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 one parent (the alienating parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the target parent) without legitimate justification.

The most common cause of PA is indoctrination of the child by the alienating parent to dislike or fear the target parent.  Parents have been characterized as: mildly alienating (making negative comments about the other parent but without a serious intention of undermining the child’s relationship with that parent); moderately alienating(having a conscious intention to undermine the targeted parent, knowing it is wrong and possibly harmful to the child); and severely alienating (determined to destroy the child’s relationship with the other parent).

The eight criteria for the diagnosis of PA are: the child’s campaign of denigration against the target parent; frivolous rationalizations for the child’s criticisms; lack of ambivalence; the independent-thinker phenomenon; reflexive support of the alienating parent; absence of guilt over exploitation of the target parent; borrowed scenarios; and spread of the child’s animosity toward the target parent’s extended family.

There are many treatments for PA.  The choice of treatment depends on whether the level of PA in the child is: mild (the child resists contact with the target parent, but enjoys the relationship once parenting time is underway); moderate (the child strongly resists contact and is persistently oppositional during parenting time with the target parent); or severe (the child persistently and adamantly refuses contact with the target parent).