What is the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence?

At PsychLaw.net we know that parental alienation (PA) is widely accepted by both mental health and legal professionals; however, a handful of authors in legal and social science publications deny the existence and/or reliability of PA as a meaningful construct. Accordingly, these few PA detractors claim that expert testimony about PA should not be admissible in North American courts, and they make specious arguments in support of this assertion. Like many deceptive arguments, absent a close reading with a complete understanding of the construct–PA, some are deceived. These blogs will examine the criteria for the admission of expert testimony, how PA meets these criteria and then outlines (and refutes) the misinformation about PA’s admissibility.

In this blog we will be discussing the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence. “The Importance of Voir Dire in High-Conflict Family Law Cases,” addresses in detail the standards for the admissibility of expert evidence in the U.S., so they will be addressed only briefly here.

         Generally speaking, all relevant evidence is admitted[1] unless:  [I]ts probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.[2]” Evidence is relevant if it: “(a) has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.[3]

         The admission of expert evidence is governed by, in addition to those for relevance, further considerations because of the “wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation” that an expert enjoys.[4] It is important to note that this same “latitude” is not granted to ordinary witnesses, who must restrict their opinion testimony to those matters that the witness rationally perceived, and bear upon his or her testimony or a fact in issue.[5]

         To have expert evidence admitted, the proffering party must first present the expert either to the court in its case-in-chief or in a preliminary hearing (variously called a 104, 403, or 702 hearing or voir dire). In either situation, a similar order of examination will occur: (1) the proponent examines the witness in direct examination; (2) the opposing party examines the witness in cross-examination; and (3) the proponent follows up in re-direct examination.

         If the expert is examined in a preliminary hearing and fails to establish that the testimony is useful and reliable, the evidence is not admitted to the proceedings. On the other hand, if the expert is first examined while the proceedings are ongoing and then it is revealed the evidence is not useful or unreliable, while the evidence has technically been “admitted,” the court will give it little or no weight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Fed. R. Evid. 402.

[2] Fed. R. Evid. 403.

[3] Fed. R. Evid. 401.

[4] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993).

[5] Fed. R. Evid. 701.

What is the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence?

At PsychLaw.net we know that parental alienation (PA) is widely accepted by both mental health and legal professionals; however, a handful of authors in legal and social science publications deny the existence and/or reliability of PA as a meaningful construct. Accordingly, these few PA detractors claim that expert testimony about PA should not be admissible in North American courts, and they make specious arguments in support of this assertion. Like many deceptive arguments, absent a close reading with a complete understanding of the construct–PA, some are deceived. These blogs will examine the criteria for the admission of expert testimony, how PA meets these criteria and then outlines (and refutes) the misinformation about PA’s admissibility.

In this blog we will be discussing the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence. “The Importance of Voir Dire in High-Conflict Family Law Cases,” addresses in detail the standards for the admissibility of expert evidence in the U.S., so they will be addressed only briefly here.

         Generally speaking, all relevant evidence is admitted[1] unless:  [I]ts probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.[2]” Evidence is relevant if it: “(a) has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.[3]

         The admission of expert evidence is governed by, in addition to those for relevance, further considerations because of the “wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation” that an expert enjoys.[4] It is important to note that this same “latitude” is not granted to ordinary witnesses, who must restrict their opinion testimony to those matters that the witness rationally perceived, and bear upon his or her testimony or a fact in issue.[5]

         To have expert evidence admitted, the proffering party must first present the expert either to the court in its case-in-chief or in a preliminary hearing (variously called a 104, 403, or 702 hearing or voir dire). In either situation, a similar order of examination will occur: (1) the proponent examines the witness in direct examination; (2) the opposing party examines the witness in cross-examination; and (3) the proponent follows up in re-direct examination.

         If the expert is examined in a preliminary hearing and fails to establish that the testimony is useful and reliable, the evidence is not admitted to the proceedings. On the other hand, if the expert is first examined while the proceedings are ongoing and then it is revealed the evidence is not useful or unreliable, while the evidence has technically been “admitted,” the court will give it little or no weight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Fed. R. Evid. 402.

[2] Fed. R. Evid. 403.

[3] Fed. R. Evid. 401.

[4] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993).

[5] Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Tools to differentiate between real and false allegations

Psychologist researcher Hollida Wakefield and Lutheran Minister turned clinical psychologist, Ralph Underwager, taught that the “natural history” (origin, timing, and nature) of a child abuse allegation must be examined (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990 & 1991).  While they focused primarily on sexual abuse accusations, their strategy is applicable to other forms of alleged abuse as well.  They provided preliminary guidelines for the determination of true versus false accusations. They defined factors behind false allegations of sexual abuse, including the character of the accuser, the persons who aid and in many cases abet the accuser, and the use of leading or manipulative questioning.  Counsel and the defense team should be mindful of the list Wakefield and Underwager (1990 &1991) provided to differentiate between real and false allegations; they suggested the fact finder examine the:

  • Origin of the disclosure;
  • Timing of the allegations;
  • Age of the child;
  • Behavior of the accusing parent;
  • Nature of the allegations;
  • Characteristics of the child’s statement;
  • Personality characteristics of the parties involved; and
  • Behavior of the Professionals involved.  

For this reason counsel, staff researcher and the defense team expert must carefully analyze every statement made by Adrian, every statement attributed to Adrian by another, and specifically how the CPS and the CAC personnel arrived at their conclusions.  The CAC video-recorded “forensic” interviews must be analyzed, second by second, for indications of parental influences; interviewer bias; leading, suggestive, or repetitive questions; interviewer modifications of what was said; questions that suggested new content; questions that denigrated Richard; and so forth.  Each utterance must be coded as to when it was made, what specifically was said and to whom the statement was made.   Lacking a skilled researcher, this process can be replicated by any attorney near a university.  A little searching (try Craig’s List) will find a social sciences graduate student who is already plugged into numerous medical and behavioral science databases through their study.  They all need money and the good ones can break down the science jargon easily. The statements analysis should then be laid out in an Excel spreadsheet.  These coded lists should be cross-referenced as they will form the basis for cross-examination of the accuser and other witnesses over their inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.  

In Richard’s case, counsel will prepare specific science content areas to deal with the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement and its aftermath. Review of the natural history of the allegation shows that some time before little Adrian is said to have made the “Daddy hurt me” statement, Jane was away at a continuing education seminar and Adrian and Richard traveled to a hotel and theme park.  On the return trip to the family home, Richard was cut off in traffic by an elderly couple driving through a red light.  When he slammed on the brakes, Adrian’s improperly fastened seat belt gave way and the child collided with the rear passenger doorpost.  Her black eye and bruises took several hours to appear.  When they arrived home, Jane grabbed Adrian and left the home.  To educate the trier of fact about what Jane has been saying to Adrian and how the “Daddy hurt me” statement came about is counsel’s first science content area: parental influences on children’s memory.   When Jane took little Adrian to CPS, the investigator sent Jane and Adrian to the local CAC for a forensic interview.  With respect to the interview and the effects of the play therapy on Adrian, counsel’s second science content area is children’s suggestibility.  

Over the course of months since the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement, the play therapist has carefully noted the many additional statements Adrian has made involving “Daddy” and “hurting” and “a long time.”  Jane’s counsel, the prosecutor and the play therapist all say that Adrian’s alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement is clearly a delayed disclosure.  This, then, is the third science content area counsel we at PsychLaw.net know must develop. 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1990).  Personality characteristics of parents 

making false accusations of sexual abuse  in  custody   disputes. Issues in 

Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3), 121–136. 

 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and  

custody disputes, Behavioral Sciences and the Law9(4), 451-468.

Preliminary guidelines for the determination of true versus false accusations

Psychologist researcher Hollida Wakefield and Lutheran Minister turned clinical psychologist, Ralph Underwager, taught that the “natural history” (origin, timing, and nature) of a child abuse allegation must be examined (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990 & 1991).  While they focused primarily on sexual abuse accusations, their strategy is applicable to other forms of alleged abuse as well.  They provided preliminary guidelines for the determination of true versus false accusations. They defined factors behind false allegations of sexual abuse, including the character of the accuser, the persons who aid and in many cases abet the accuser, and the use of leading or manipulative questioning.  Counsel and the defense team should be mindful of the list Wakefield and Underwager (1990 &1991) provided to differentiate between real and false allegations; they suggested the fact finder examine the:

  • Origin of the disclosure;
  • Timing of the allegations;
  • Age of the child;
  • Behavior of the accusing parent;
  • Nature of the allegations;
  • Characteristics of the child’s statement;
  • Personality characteristics of the parties involved; and
  • Behavior of the Professionals involved.  

For this reason counsel, staff researcher and the defense team expert must carefully analyze every statement made by Adrian, every statement attributed to Adrian by another, and specifically how the CPS and the CAC personnel arrived at their conclusions.  The CAC video-recorded “forensic” interviews must be analyzed, second by second, for indications of parental influences; interviewer bias; leading, suggestive, or repetitive questions; interviewer modifications of what was said; questions that suggested new content; questions that denigrated Richard; and so forth.  Each utterance must be coded as to when it was made, what specifically was said and to whom the statement was made.   Lacking a skilled researcher, this process can be replicated by any attorney near a university.  A little searching (try Craig’s List) will find a social sciences graduate student who is already plugged into numerous medical and behavioral science databases through their study.  They all need money and the good ones can break down the science jargon easily. The statements analysis should then be laid out in an Excel spreadsheet.  These coded lists should be cross-referenced as they will form the basis for cross-examination of the accuser and other witnesses over their inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.  

In Richard’s case, counsel will prepare specific science content areas to deal with the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement and its aftermath. Review of the natural history of the allegation shows that some time before little Adrian is said to have made the “Daddy hurt me” statement, Jane was away at a continuing education seminar and Adrian and Richard traveled to a hotel and theme park.  On the return trip to the family home, Richard was cut off in traffic by an elderly couple driving through a red light.  When he slammed on the brakes, Adrian’s improperly fastened seat belt gave way and the child collided with the rear passenger doorpost.  Her black eye and bruises took several hours to appear.  When they arrived home, Jane grabbed Adrian and left the home.  To educate the trier of fact about what Jane has been saying to Adrian and how the “Daddy hurt me” statement came about is counsel’s first science content area: parental influences on children’s memory.   When Jane took little Adrian to CPS, the investigator sent Jane and Adrian to the local CAC for a forensic interview.  With respect to the interview and the effects of the play therapy on Adrian, counsel’s second science content area is children’s suggestibility.  

Over the course of months since the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement, the play therapist has carefully noted the many additional statements Adrian has made involving “Daddy” and “hurting” and “a long time.”  Jane’s counsel, the prosecutor and the play therapist all say that Adrian’s alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement is clearly a delayed disclosure.  This, then, is the third science content area counsel we at PsychLaw.net know must develop. 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1990).  Personality characteristics of parents 

making false accusations of sexual abuse  in  custody   disputes. Issues in 

Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3), 121–136. 

 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and  

custody disputes, Behavioral Sciences and the Law9(4), 451-468.

Evaluation Of Parental Alienation

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 Psychology10(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 Accusations4(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 Psychology52(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. 

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). 

What roles do attorneys have in PA cases?

In this blog post we at PsychLaw.net will be discussing the role of attorneys in PA cases. It is easy to identify various levels of PA in mental health settings, in a variety of legal contexts, and in the everyday lives of neighbors, friends, and relatives.  Attorneys may have several roles in cases that involve PA, but the most common is serving as the lawyer for one of the parents.  Attorneys may also serve as a GAL for the child or as a “best interest” attorney representing the child.  Litigating cases involving PA requires a skill set and knowledge of legal procedures that go beyond those used in less complex family law scenarios.

When the attorney represents the target parent, it is essential to ask the client to carefully document past events.  Every moment in the child’s life prior to the onset of PA must be documented and potential exhibits and witnesses identified. Lorandos (2011) recommends a method by which a master chronology file and a master document are created, which ultimately includes every file, document, photograph, video, and witness statement or transcript.  The database includes a complete list of all witnesses with contact information and citations to relevant places in the master document and chronology file. Organization of this material is critical to help the judge understand what has happened and what can be done about it.

The attorney for the target parent must demonstrate how the behavior of the alienating parent contributed to the development of PA, and whether it is in the early stage of mild PA or in the more advanced stage of moderate or severe PA, when the campaign of denigration, emotional poisoning, and brainwashing have escalated (Sauber, 2006).   Sauber also instructs that the attorney should be mindful that the client will be anxious, angry and depressed.  It is the attorney’s challenge to carefully explain to the judge how this came about, assign appropriate responsibility, and to offer expert recommendations to ameliorate the condition.  After gaining the client’s trust, the attorney must advise the client with regard to appropriate behavior and management of his or her emotions.  The attorney must aid the client to be steady, truthful, and direct in testimony about being a victim but “at the same time present[ing] to the judge examples, facts, and detailed descriptions of the particulars that are taking place” (Sauber, 2006, p.13).  The attorney for the target parent also has the responsibility of carefully selecting an expert either by mutual agreement with opposing counsel or without it.  An expert who does not know the research will not qualify under the Frye, Daubert,or Canadian Mohan standards. 

An attorney always has the option of retaining a mental health consultant as a member of his litigation team.  A mental health consultant assists the attorney and the target parent in organizing files such as emails between the parties, proof that the false allegations are fabricated, preparing questions for the direct and cross-examination of various witnesses, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the case findings and opinions of the therapist and evaluators, screening collateral contacts, and other ways of helping the attorney represent the “unpopular”  position of the target parent (Bone and Sauber, 2012).

Lorandos, D. (2011). Saving Tonya Craft: An Integration of Science and Law.  Champion, 35 (24). 

Sauber, S. R. (2006). PAS as a Family Tragedy: Roles of Family Members, Professionals, and the Justice System. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

What role does the court play in PA cases

In this blog post we at PsychLaw.net will be discussing the role of the court in PA cases. While the behavioral sciences have been concerned with PA for the last seventy years, PA has been identified in legal proceedings for more than two hundred years.  Stephens (2009) documented cases of PA all the way back to the 18th century in England.  There has been much criticism for many years regarding the handling of PA cases in court – with the criticism ranging from the adversarial nature of law itself to the rules and policies of many courts to the behavior of individual judges.  Many mental health and legal writers have expressed concern regarding: absence of active case management, legal disputes that continue for months and years, litigation that unnecessarily escalates conflict, litigation that encourages the children to gravitate to one parent and shun the other parent, and repeated violations of orders go unpunished so parents make a mockery of the court’s authority.

         Several judges in the U.S. and Canada have been outspoken in their suggestions for how to reduce the trauma of PA.  For example, Judge Michele Lowrance (2010) of Chicago stresses the corrosive power of anger in these circumstances and works to redirect it.  Justice Donna Martinson (2010) of British Columbia argued that “several steps are necessary in order to maintain the focus on the best interests of the children and move the case to a resolution in a just, timely and affordable way” including: early identification of the high conflict cases; setting, right at the start, firm rules about the expected conduct of the parents toward the litigation, the children and each other; setting a time frame within which the case must be concluded; and setting a schedule within the time frame for all the steps that must be taken before a solution can be reached including any necessary psychological or other assessments.

In cases involving PA, case management is important.  Bala, Fidler, Goldberg, and Houston (2007) wrote:

It is important for judges to take control of alienation cases, to limit the possibility of manipulating the court process by the parents, and to ensure a firm and quick response to violations of court orders. These are cases for which judicial case management is especially appropriate. 

 

         In cases involving PA, therapeutic jurisprudence may be very effective.  Sauber (2006) pointed out that the court has the power and the influence – even more than the psychologist, psychiatrist, mental health counselor, social worker, or family therapist – to moderate or alleviate PA.  Fidler and Bala (2010) wrote, “In many alienation cases, the education, coaching, and threats or encouragement of a judge can be a prime motivator for change. Many times in these circumstances, we see children adapt to firm court orders.” 

         In cases involving PA it is important to set limits, which may require extreme measures.  That may take the form of contempt citations, imposed supervised contact, a reversal of custodial arrangements, and suspension of visitations with the indoctrinating parent.  Sauber (2006) wrote, “It takes ‘guts’ for a judge to order this reversal even if the evidence is compelling, knowing how much the children will ‘hate’ and protest living with the ‘despised’ parent” (p. 15).

         In cases involving PA, environmental changes may be very effective in helping children overcome unreasonable negative attitudes.  Several authors describing their qualitative research using case studies have reported on the benefits of changing custody or enforced parenting time in severe alienation cases. For example, Clawar and Rivlin (1991) reported an improvement in children’s relationships with rejected parents in 90 percent of 400 cases where an increase in the child’s contact with the target parent was court ordered.  They wrote:

Children may say, “I hate her. I’ll never speak with her if you make me go see her,” “I’ll run away,” or “I’ll kill myself if he comes to see me.” However, in some cases, children were told to say these things by the programming and brainwashing parent…. It is not uncommon to see these threats disintegrate after court orders change (p. 144).

 

Today, there is general recognition that a reversal of custody may be warranted in severe cases (Drozd & Olesen, 2009; Johnston & Goldman, 2010; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009; Warshak, 2010b).  

Bala, N., Fidler, B. J., Goldberg, D., & Houston, C. (2007). Alienated children and parental separation: Legal responses in Canada’s family courts. Queen’s Law Journal, 33, 79-138. 

Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W. (2009). When a child rejects a parent. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. 

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. 

Johnston, J. R., & Goldman, J. R. (2010). Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters. Family Court Review, 48, 112-115. 

Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the Name of the Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted and Violent Divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. 

Lowrance, M. (2010). The Good Karma Divorce. New York: Harper Collins. 

Martinson, D. J. (2010). One Case – One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict cases. Family Court Review, 48(1), 180-189. 

Sauber, S. R. (2006). PAS as a Family Tragedy: Roles of Family Members, Professionals, and the Justice System. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. 

Stephens, R. (2009).  A Historical Perspective on Parental Alienation and Child Custody Disputes: 1760-Present.  Unpublished manuscript. 

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

Social Sciences in PA

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?

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. 

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 Publisher. 

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

Who is involved in high conflict custody cases?

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

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?

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. 

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 Publisher. 

     

Diagnosing PA/PAS

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.

Diagnosing PAS

The most widely accepted criteria for the diagnosis of PAS that we at PsychLaw.net have found was originally published by Gardner (1985, 1992), who wrote that children with PAS manifested some or all of eight characteristic behaviors.  We have adapted Gardner’s eight criteria for the diagnosis of PA, as we use the term in this blog.  It is important to emphasize that the diagnosis of PA is based upon the level of symptoms in the child, not on the symptom level of the alienating parent.

         It should be noted that some children are more susceptible than others to the indoctrination promulgated by the alienating parent because of both external and internal factors.  That is, a child may be more vulnerable because of stressful external factors such as: the shared parenting arrangements; a new intimate partner of their parent; changes in the child’s residence, peers, and school system; and economic factors causing the child to adjust to a new home in a less expensive neighborhood and attending a new school.  Also, the intensity and duration of the child’s symptoms depend on internal factors such as the child’s temperament, which affects the child’s susceptibility to influence by others.  A child low in susceptibility may rebuff a parent’s attempt to “poison” the child against the other parent, whereas a highly susceptible child is likely to internalize and believe the false propaganda intentionally programmed by the alienating parent.  (See Chapter 7, “Reunification Planning and Therapy,” for a more detailed discussion of the child’s “vulnerability” due to external circumstances and the child’s “susceptibility” due to personality and temperamental factors, especially in regard to reunification.)

         Some researchers have studied the frequency with which the eight criteria occur in individual cases of PA or PAS.  For example, Baker and Darnall (2007) collected information from 68 parents whose children were severely alienated from them.  They used a questionnaire to determine how often the eight symptoms of PAS listed by Gardner had been observed by their subjects.  The authors found “general support for the presence of the eight symptoms of PAS.”  In this research, 88% of the target parents said that the alienated child “always” or “often” denigrated, rejected, or belittled them.  Also, 98% of the target parents said that the alienated child “completely” or “mostly” gave weak, frivolous, or absurd reasons for rejecting them.

 

Baker, A. J. L., & Darnall, D. (2007). A construct study of the eight symptoms of severe parental alienation syndrome: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 47(1/2):55-75. 

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2), 3-7. 

 

Gardner, R. A. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. 

 

PA and Brainwashing

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. 

Anxiety in PA

We at PsychLaw.net are aware that many alienating parents have demonstrable difficulties in their psychosocial functioning. As long ago as 1985, Benedek and Schetky reported that in high conflict custody cases, overly anxious parents tended to act out their mistrust for their former spouses. They wrote that anxious parents may transmit their anxiety to their child, causing the child to feel that he or she will not be safe visiting the other parent. Writing in 1987, Blush and Ross described cases of PA in which the personality of the alienating parent served as the force driving the alienation. In some of those situations, Blush and Ross described a pattern they termed the “justified vindicator.” They wrote:
In this instance, a hostile, emotionally expansive, and dominant female has directly appealed to “experts” in both the mental health and legal communities. She frequently becomes insistent that formal, punitive legal measures be taken via prosecution before reasonable proofs have been demonstrated. One of the accompanying phenomena with this type of female parent is that she frequently has concurrent criminal action pending with her domestic legal action.

Many researchers explain that alienating parents tend to be rigidly defended and moralistic. These alienators perceive themselves to be flawless, 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). Research literature consistently documents that psychopathology and personality disorders are present in a significant proportion of high-conflict parents litigating over custody or access (Friedman, 2004; Siegel & Langford, 1998). Psychological disturbance – including histrionic, paranoid, borderline, and narcissistic personality disorders or characteristics as well as psychosis, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse – are common among alienating parents (Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Rand, 1997a, 1997b; Turkat 1999; Warshak, 2010a).

Two groups of researchers found that the maladaptive personality traits of alienating parents were consistently identified through objective psychological evaluation materials. Concerning the MMPI-2, Siegel and Langford (1998) wrote: “The present study is an attempt to gain understanding of parents who engage in alienating tactics through a statistical examination of their MMPI-2 validity scales.” They tested 16 female subjects who met the criteria for classification as PAS parents; 18 female subjects were considered non-PAS parents. The authors concluded:
The hypothesis was confirmed for K and F scales, indicating that PAS parents are more likely to complete MMPI-2 questions in a defensive manner, striving to appear as flawless as possible. It was concluded that parents who engage in alienating behaviors are more likely than other parents to use the psychological defenses of denial and projection, which are associated with this validity scale pattern.

Gordon, Stoffey, and Bottinelli (2008) examined the MMPI-2 data of 76 cases where PA was found and 82 custody cases (controls) where PA did not operate. They found that mothers and fathers who were alienators had much higher scores on measures of psychological dysfunction; that is, test scores that indicated primitive defenses such as “splitting” and “projective identification.” Two different MMPI-2 indexes were used to measure these primitive defenses: L + K – F and (L + Pa + Sc) – (Hy + Pt). The first index (L + K – F) identifies persistent defensiveness. Elevations on this index would be expected in those cases of parents viewing themselves as an “all good parent” while condemning the former spouse as an “all bad parent.” The second index ([L + Pa + Sc] – [Hy + Pt]) is the Goldberg Index (1965). The Goldberg Index is a regression equation score which is the T score of (Lie + Paranoia + Schizophrenia) – (Hysteria + Psychasthenia). Those high “pathology scores” were much more prevalent in the alienator group; the scores for the target parents were most like the scores of the control parents. Gordon and his colleagues concluded that their overall study strongly supported the definitions Gardner put forward with respect to PAS.

Many authors have described the specific behaviors that an alienating parent might use to induce PA in the child. Gardner (1992) gave many examples of alienating strategies he had observed in conducting child custody evaluations. Gardner said that mothers alienated children against their fathers by: repeatedly vilifying the father with derogatory names; destroying every item in the house that might remind the children of the father’s existence; frequently complaining about how little money the father provided; exaggerating the father’s minor psychological problems; and interfering with the father’s visitation schedule (pp. 83-91). Gardner said that fathers alienated children against their mothers by: failing to encourage the children to spend time with the mother; physically protecting the child from the imagined dangers associated with the mother; concocting a sex-abuse allegation against the mother’s live-in boyfriend; seductive maneuvers, such as frequently cuddling and hugging the children; criticizing the mother for “never working a day in her life”; and developing secret codes with the children that were used in the service of hurting the mother (pp. 107-112).

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, 24-28.
Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205-211.

Benedek, E. P., & Schetky, D. H. (1985). Custody and visitation: Problems and perspectives. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 8(4), 857-873.

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

Friedman, M. (2004). The so-called high-conflict couple: A closer look. American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(2), 101-117.

Gardner, R. A. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Goldberg, L.R. (1965). Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis vs neurosis from the MMPI. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79(9), 1-28.

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.

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.

Rand, D. (1997a). The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome, Part I. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15(3), 23-52.

Rand, D. (1997b). The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome, Part II. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15(4), 39-92.

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.

Turkat, I. D. (1999). Divorce-Related Malicious Parent Syndrome.Journal of Family Violence, 14, 95-97.

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