While the case is winding through discovery in the family court, psychological evaluations to determine the “best interests” of Adrian are ordered. Counsel should work to get this process started with an evaluator who has some sense of PA. Counsel should negotiate with opposing counsel to pick a skilled evaluator, and with the family court judge to obtain a protective order stating that Richard does not have to begin the evaluation until the criminal case is concluded. In the likely event that counsel is stuck with someone’s favorite evaluator, it will be important to work with the defense team expert to slowly spoon feed the evaluator with recent research on the psychological evaluation of alienating and target parents. The defense team expert should provide a brief on research into alienating parents that found alienators perceive themselves to be flawless and virtuous, and they externalize responsibility onto others. They lack insight into their own behavior and the impact their behavior has on others (Bagby, Nicholson, Buis, Radovanovic, & Fidler, 1999; Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997; Siegel, 1996). The defense team expert should add to this brief for the evaluator the literature which describes psychological disturbance (including histrionic, paranoid, and narcissistic personality disorders or characteristics) as well as psychosis, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse as common among alienator parents (Baker, 2006; Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Gardner, 1992; Hoppe & Kenney, 1994; Kopetski, 1998a, 1998b; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Lampel, 1996; Siegel & Langford, 1998; Rand, 1997a, 1997b; Racusin & Copans, 1994; Turkat, 1994, 1999; Warshak, 2010a). Counsel’s brief, designed to educate the chosen evaluator, must include a discussion of two important MMPI-2 studies comparing alienator parents with target parents and controls (Siegel & Langford, 1998; Gordon, Stoffey & Bottinelli, 2008).
As the weeks go by, Jane associates with a number of like-minded folks in her support meetings. They begin to attend court sessions with Jane. In the hallways of the courthouse, counsel must step around a developing cadre of people infused with righteous anger, staring Richard down. What is happening here? Counsel, in the criminal and family court pleadings, has described PA. This has aroused the ire of persons who argue that men misogynistically use the concept of PA in court to defeat women who are trying to stand up for themselves and their children. Counsel must be aware of the arguments these detractors rely upon (Lorandos, 2006).
While advocacy is playing out in the family court, the CAC has been giving Adrian “therapy.” Through discovery in the criminal case, counsel learns that the child is receiving play therapy, a particularly controversial modality that encourages the child to use her imagination and narrative skills to express herself (Campbell, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c, & 1992d; Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon 1991). Records delivered in discovery document that Adrian’s stories are getting more and more detailed as Adrian goes to therapy once a week and sometimes twice if she’s particularly “anxious.” The master document file and chronology hold data demonstrating that the double visits are occurring on the weeks in which there is a court date.
Adrian’s increasingly detailed stories make their way into the court record through Jane’s filings. Jane, Janice, Steven’s sister, and her supporters seize on this, and counsel is met with a barrage of blog posts, news articles, website articles about PA, and articles accusing Richard Gardner of being a protector of abusers. Jane and her supporters appear on a local talk show, specifically stating, “Richard Connelly abused his 3-year-old daughter.” The townspeople are sharpening their pitchforks, and a whiff of bonfire is in the air. A normal reaction would be to speak out. Counsel must remember Gentile (1991) and circle the wagons. In Gentile, an attorney gave a press conference hours after his client was indicted on criminal charges. The Nevada State Bar filed a complaint alleging that the attorney violated a rule prohibiting an attorney from making an extrajudicial statement, which could have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” It was a mess. Counsel, don’t shoot ‘til you see the whites of their eyes.
In the criminal case, counsel must do every bit of discovery possible in Richard’s preliminary examination. Put Jane on the stand, and Adrian too. Counsel should ask as many specific questions as possible, because the devil is in the details. Once counsel gets Jane and Adrian’s stories at the Preliminary Examination, support staff must compare them to every statement from every other place the “Daddy hurt me” allegation has been repeated. Staff must compare police reports, CAC records, therapy records, and Jane’s appearances in the media. With this data, support staff must compile charts of the inconsistencies between each actor’s stories. Counsel’s researcher and the defense team expert must analyze all of the interviews and the credentials of the professionals involved in the case from within this scientific perspective. Before counsel attempts Jane’s deposition in the family case, counsel should depose other actors, such as therapist Steven and sister Janice. Counsel must depose the CAC therapist, making sure to focus on finding out what Adrian has stated in therapy. Counsel must politely question the CAC therapist about what she does in play therapy, getting as many details as possible. In Jane’s deposition counsel must confront Jane with the things the private investigator has uncovered, as well as what counsel has found while deposing other individuals. Counsel should not work for a Perry Mason moment here; just get Jane to lie, again and again and again. Counsel’s goal must be to link Adrian’s statements (from interviews, therapy, and Adrian’s teachers) to statements by Jane. They will all be cross-referenced by staff in the “inconsistencies” charts. Later they will be used to show Jane’s parental influence on Adrian. Counsel must push the criminal trial and base the defense on science.
Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999).
Defensive Responding on the MMPI-2 in Family Custody and Access Evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 24-28.
Baker, A. J. L. (2006). Patterns of Parental Alienation Syndrome; A Qualitative
Study of Adults Who Were Alienated from a Parent as a Child. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(1), 63-78.
Campbell, T. W. (1992a). False allegations of sexual abuse and their apparent
credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(4), 21-35. Quotes at pages 23, 25 and 27 respectively.
Campbell, T. W. (1992b). False allegations of sexual abuse and the persuasiveness
of play therapy. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4(3), 118-124.
Campbell, T. W. (1992c). Promoting Play therapy: Marketing dream or empirical nightmare. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4(3), 111-117.
Campbell, T. W. (1992d). Psychotherapy with children of divorce: The pitfalls of
triangulated relationships. Psychotherapy, 29(4), 646-652.
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. (1992). The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental
Health and Legal Professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gordon, R. M., Stoffey, R., & Bottinelli, J. (2008). MMPI-2 Findings of Primitive
Defenses in Alienating Parents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(3), 211-228.
Hoppe, C. & Kenney, L. (1994). A Rorschach Study of the Psychological
Characteristics of Parents Engaged in Child Custody/Visitation Disputes.
Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association.
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., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Clinical Ratings of
Parenting Capacity and Rorschach Protocols of Custody-Disputing Parents:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of Child Custody, 2(1-2), 159-178.
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.
Lampel, A. (1996). Children’s Alignment with Parents in Highly Conflicted Custody Cases. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34(2), 229-239.
Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in
memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52(3), 297-318.
Lorandos, D. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome: Detractors and the junk science
vacuum. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The
International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual,
Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 397–418). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Siegel, J. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 Validity Indicators and Initial Presentation
in Custody Evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13(3), 55-63.
Siegel, J., & Langford, J. (1998). MMPI-2 Validity Scales and Suspected Parental
Alienation Syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(4), 5-14.