2015 family law seminar2015 family law seminar · 2018-04-04 · expert advice on how to deal with...

Expert Advice on How to Deal with Parental Alienation in Family Law Cases

1:00 p.m.- 2:30 p.m.

Presented by

2015 FAMILY LAW SEMINAR2015 FAMILY LAW SEMINAR

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30

Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos Lorandos Joshi2400 S. Huron ParkwayAnn Arbor, MI 48104Phone: 734-249-6170

Diane DornburgCarney & Appleby, PLC400 Homestead Building303 Locust StreetDes Moines, IA 50309Phone: 515-282-6803

PARENTAL ALIENATION IN FAMILY LAW CASES Diane L. Dornburg

1. There is such a thing as parental alienation

a. Working Definitions: i. Favored parent: the parent preferred by the child ii. Rejected parent: the parent with whom the child resists or

refuses contact iii. Estranged children: children who are “estranged” from a

parent as a result of parental abuse or neglect (Joan B. Kelly) iv. Alienated child: A child who expresses strong negative

feelings & beliefs towards a parent that are disproportionate to the child’s experience with that parent and resists/refuses contact (Joan B. Kelly)

v. Parental Alienation: a child’s unreasonable rejection of one parent due to the influence of the other parent combined with the child’s own contributions. (Philip Stahl)

vi. Hostile Aggressive Parenting: A general pattern of behavior, manipulation, actions or decision-making of a person (usually a parent or guardian) that either directly or indirectly 1) creates undue difficulties or interferences in the relationship of a child with another person (usually a parent or guardian) involved with the parenting and/or rearing of the child and/or, 2) promotes or maintains an unwarranted unfairness or inequality in the parenting arrangements between a child’s parents and/or guardians and/or, 3) promotes ongoing and unnecessary conflict between parents and/or guardians which adversely affects the parenting, well-being and rearing of a child.

b. Iowa Code version:

i. 598.1 Definitions. As used in this chapter: 1. "Best interest of the child" includes but is not limited to the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result from this contact. Refusal by one parent to provide this opportunity without just cause shall be considered harmful to the best interest of the child.

ii. 598.41 Custody of children. 1. a. The court may provide for joint custody of the child by the parties. The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent. b. Notwithstanding paragraph "a", if the court finds that a history of domestic abuse exists, a rebuttable presumption against the awarding of joint custody exists. c. The court shall consider the denial by one parent of the child's opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. Just cause may include a determination by the court pursuant to subsection 3, paragraph "j", that a history of domestic abuse exists between the parents.

2. There is no such thing as parental alienation syndrome a. Richard Gardner b. DSM-5 c. It is not a medical diagnosis

3. Child preference or child reluctance or child refusal of contact with a

parent may be but is not necessarily parental alienation

4. A parent rejected by a child or not preferred by the child will often claim that the child has been alienated from him or her by the other parent

5. A conclusion that parental alienation has occurred cannot be based on information from only the rejected parent

6. In order to determine whether parental alienation has occurred, an assessment of the entire family is needed

7. Evaluation is needed prior to custody determination

8. Evaluation is needed as part of parenting coordination if a child is

refusing contact with a parent

9. Evaluation of the family must include, at a minimum: a. At least two separate meetings with the parents. In the initial

meeting, each parent will provide his or her narrative. In at least one subsequent meeting, a series of structured questions is asked to identify family relationships and dynamics.

b. At least four separate meetings with the child. i. The initial meeting with the child in a neutral location

1. One or both parents brings the child to the meeting 2. All parents present assure the child, in my presence,

that it is okay for them to talk to me about anything 3. A standard from “child’s report” 4. Unstructured conversation to get to know the child,

see the family from the child’s eye view, and establish rapport with the child

ii. At least two meetings with the child, one at the home of each parent

1. Standard “child’s report” for consistency 2. Structured questions to identify family relationships

and dynamics 3. Unstructured conversation to allow the child to

present more information 4. Observation of child’s relationship with each parent 5. Observation of differences in each environment

iii. At least one additional meeting with the child in a neutral

location 1. Standard “child’s report” for consistency 2. Structured questions for more in-depth information

about the child’s preference

10. Assessment

a. Child preference factors i. The child's age and educational level

ii. Relationship with family members iii. Reason for decision iv. The advisability of recognizing teenagers' wishes v. Recognition that the court is not aware of all factors that

influence the child's decision

b. Alienation factors (see Dr. Lorandos presentation)

11. Solutions a. There is no one single solution when parental alienation has

occurred b. Place the child with the rejected parent c. Follow the child’s wishes regarding contact with the rejected parent d. Interventions

i. Type of intervention clearly defined ii. Role of professional clearly defined iii. Requirements of parents clearly defined

12. Types of intervention

a. Reunification therapy with a mental health professional

i. The purpose is an attempt to identify the relationship between the child and the reunifying parent while identifying the stressors which have impacted the relationship. The goals vary, however often include communication, trust and addressing residual feelings contributing to the estrangement.

ii. Consider high conflict or other divorce cases where one parent is not seeing the child. Is only appropriate if the reunification therapist or other appropriate professional is able to assess the estranged parent in order to determine if an attempt at reunification is in the best interest of the child.

iii. Appropriate ONLY AFTER an assessment of the entire family

to determine the cause of the child’s rejection of the parent. All pertinent records and contact with collateral professionals and governing agencies must be available to the reunification therapist.

iv. The Court Order should include the expectations of cooperation by both parents, the Court’s concerns and treatment goals and what interventions will be used,

parameters for extended family involvement, discretion to the therapist to set arrangements for treatment, payment arrangements for the therapist, and contingencies in the event of re-litigation.

b. Co-parenting counseling with a mental health professional i. Co-parent counseling is an effective way to assist separated

or divorced parents to keep communication about child-related issues respectful and constructive. Each parent gains skills to build a more cooperative co-parenting relationship that is focused on meeting the needs of the child(ren).

ii. Co-parent therapy can help through the restructure of family resulting from divorce.

iii. Co-parent counseling may help one or both parents resolve some of their anger or grief related to the ending of the relationship so that both can focus more fully on parenting issues and the best interest of the child(ren).

iv. Co-parent counseling is not for every separated or divorced parent who cannot resolve issues with their child’s other parent. Individuals who cannot tolerate sitting together in a room or constructively contribute to a dialogue in which issues are identified and resolved may find co-parent counseling frustrating and ineffective.

c. Parenting Coordination with a legal or mental health professional specially trained in parenting coordination, preferably with advanced training in child refusal

i. A quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decision-making functions.

ii. A child-focused process for facilitating the resolution of disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

iii. Appropriate uses of parenting coordinator 1. To assist high conflict parents to implement their

parenting plan. 2. To monitor compliance with the details of the plan. 3. To resolve conflicts regarding their children and the

parenting plan in a timely manner. 4. To protect and sustain safe, healthy and meaningful

parent-child relationships. 5. Provided as a contingency when appropriate joint

physical care parents need assistance to resolve disputes.

iv. NOT a solution where joint physical care is inappropriately granted to high conflict parents.

v. NOT confidential except as to HIPAA-protected records. vi. DELEGATION of decision-making requires consent of both

parents and a court order.

d. PC Protocol i. Begin work with the favored parent ii. Meet with child for child’s perspective iii. Procedure depends on court order iv. Procedure depends on needs of family v. “Positive Family Dynamics” vi. “Collaborative Problem-Solving” vii. Recommendations to Court viii. Decisions by Parenting Coordinator

13. Legal and practical implications of delegation to third party of

decisions regarding parent-child contact a. In Re Marriage of Stephens: It is well established that the district court

is the only entity that can modify a custody or visitation order, subject to the review of the appellate courts. *** This obligation to modify a decree cannot be delegated to any person or entity because that person or entity has no jurisdiction to render such a decision. The legislature has granted to the court the responsibility to make an impartial and independent determination as to what is in the best interests of the child, and this decision cannot be controlled by the agreement or stipulation of the parties. *** While the district court could seek and consider the therapist's recommendations only the district court could modify the decree after the parties had the right to be heard.

10/20/2015

1

©Demosthenes Lorandos, PH.D., J.D.Attorney & Licensed Psychologist

Lorandos Joshi, PC

PARENTALALIENATION

Detroit Metro— 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104‐5152Contact: T: (734) 327‐5030 F: (888) 995‐7868

Web: www. lorandoslaw.com

ISTHERE SUCHATHING?

Detroit Metro— 2400 S. Huron Parkway Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104‐5152 Contact: T: (734) 327‐5030 F: (888) 995‐7868


• King v. De Manneville, 5 East 221, 102 Eng. Rep. 1054 (K.B. 1804).

• Shelley v. Westbrook, 37 Eng. Rep. 850 (Ch. 1817).

• Earl of Westmeath v. Countess of Westmeath, 162 Eng. Rep. 992 (1826).

• In re Barry, 42 F. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1844).

• In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (1890).

HOWLONGHAVECOURTSBEENDEALINGWITHTHIS?

10/20/2015

2

Detroit Metro— 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104‐5152 Contact: T: (734) 327‐5030 F: (888) 995‐7868


The earliest reported case of a child’s alienation from his parent began at the turn of the nineteenth century when Leonard Thomas De Manneville literally “snatched his nursing daughter from the breast of his wife. . .” (Wright, 2002).



Another early case of the alienation of children from their parent found the romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley losing his bid to have his children returned to him from their maternal grandparents (Shelley v. Westbrook, 1817).

Shelley it seems had fallen in love with Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin and his estranged wife Harriet and her children went to live with her father. They shut Shelley out of his children’s lives. When Harriet drowned herself in the Serpentine in 1816, the family suppressed information about the suicide. When Shelley found out, he immediately married Mary and the two petitioned the court for a return of his children from the wealthy Westbrooks.



In the notorious Westmeath case, the parents were George Nugent, Earl of Westmeath, and Emily Cecil, daughter of the Marquess of Salisbury. They married in 1812 and their daughter Rosa, was born in 1814. They separated in 1818 amidst allegations that George physically assaulted Emily and committed adultery. In a moment of largess, George entered into a contract with Emily that she would be the custodial parent of Rosa and their son who had just been born.

10/20/2015

3



In the 1844 case of In re Barry, a father whose daughter was given to the care of her maternal grandparents following her mother’s untimely death, tried to get his in‐laws to return the girl. When they refused, the girl’s father attempted to use a writ of habeas corpus and the courts to compel the grandparents to return his daughter. His plea was lost on jurisdictional grounds and he never saw his daughter again. In the 1890 case of In re Burrus a father used the courts to try to obtain the custody of his daughter from his former in‐laws after the little girl’s mother died of disease. In Burrus, the grandfather released the girl when served with a writ of habeas corpus by a district court but then retook the girl by force. When the district court imprisoned the grandfather for contempt, he made out a writ of habeas corpus to the United States Supreme Court. In ordering the grandfathers release, the United States Supreme Court held that the district court lacked the jurisdiction to make out its writ. The alienated father lost again.



In 2010 researchers Richard K. Stephens and Linda Gunsberg demonstrated with archival newspaper reports, numerous historic cases of parental alienation.Stephens, R. K. & Gunsberg, L. (2010). History speaks for itself: The phenomenon and emotional pain of parental alienation. Presentation to the Parental Alienation Syndrome Conference at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, October 2‐3.



In 2010 researchers Richard K. Stephens and Linda Gunsberg demonstrated with archival newspaper reports, numerous historic cases of parental alienation (Stephens & Gunsberg, 2010).

10/20/2015

4



Albert Einstein met Maleva Maric when she was the only woman in Einstein’s section at the Polytechnic in Zurich. They married and Maric bore Einstein two sons during their 10 years of marriage. During their separation and contentious divorce in 1914, Einstein wrote to his friend Heinrich Zangger, a professor of physiology at University of Zurich that Maric was “poisoning” the children against him and that, “My fine boy had been alienated from me ... by my wife, who has a vengeful disposition” (Isaacson, 2007; Rand, 2013). To sidestep the alienation, Einstein agreed that Maric would have primary physical custody of the children and Einstein would give her all the money that he anticipated receiving when he won the Nobel Prize. After the cash settlement, it was reported that the alienation was forestalled enough to allow Einstein to again have a relationship with his two sons.



October 23rd, 1923 Evansville, Indiana newspaper story describes a lawsuit in which Ethel Montgomery Crum, mother of a child who had repeatedly been prevented from seeing her and “– according to her assertions – had been deliberately alienated from her by both her ex‐husband and her in‐laws” was awarded a $25,000 settlement on the grounds of “alienation of affections” between parent and child.



November, 1926 San Antonio, Texas:“Mother Sobs as Court Hears Fight for S A Tot”, Stephens and Gunsberg describe a child custody hearing where a husband testified that previous to his divorce, his wife had spitefully threatened to poison his daughter Terry’s mind against him. She had told her husband: “I am going to teach Terry to hate every drop of blood in your body.”

10/20/2015

5



Oakland Tribune on February 19, 1927 describes the outcome of the Sparks case. The story explains that after his divorce, Mr. Sparks reportedly taught his little daughter to condemn his estranged wife with the words: “You are not my mamma.” The report goes on to explain that Mrs. Sparks found the experience unbearable, drank poison and died from it.



A 1935 Metro Goldwyn Mayer motion picture O’ Shaughnessy’s Boy staring Wallace Berry and Jackie Cooper, grew out of a children’s book, which described an alienation campaign. The book and motion picture told the story of a father’s ultimately successful struggle to overcome the poisoning of his son’s mind against him by the maternal aunt who had custody of the boy and who had taught him to hate his own father.



An August 13th, 1941 Chicago newspaper photo story to illustrates another alienation example. A caption to one photo reads: “Attempting to hide from his mother as she pleaded for his custody, Robert Ware, 5, is shown taking refuge under a table in the chambers of Chicago Superior judge Oscar P. Nelson. The judge awarded custody of the boy to the mother Eula Ware of Dalton, Ga. and accused the divorced husband of poisoning the child’s mind against his mother.”

10/20/2015

6



A June 16th, 1950 newspaper photo story, illustrates two generations of parental alienation with another mother and daughter victimized by a repeat alienator. In the case of Ethel Martin and her daughter Arlene Starr Schneider, a maternal grandmother was determined by the court to have alienated the ten‐year‐old girl from the child’s mother during a period when the girl was living with the maternal grandmother. In her testimony the alienated parent revealed that when she was a child she too had been alienated from her father by the same alienator.



An August 29th, 1952 newspaper photo story describes another grandmother alienator as a hysterical 9‐year‐old Marlene Matchan screams at her mother “Go away!” while her alienating grandmother looks on in the courtroom. The judge admonished the grandmother for “brutally poisoning the mind” of little Marlene against her mother.



With a February 8th, 1974 copy of the American Bar Association’s nationally syndicated column Family Lawyer, Stephens and Gunsberg illustrate parental alienation described by the ABA as “poisoning the child’s mind.” The cover illustration depicts a mother pedagogically holding up a picture of “Dad” to a young child.

Stephens, R. K. & Gunsberg, L. (2010). History speaks for itself: The phenomenon and emotional pain of parental alienation. Presentation to the Parental Alienation Syndrome Conference at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, October 2‐3.

10/20/2015

7



DOESTHECONCEPTOFPARENTALALIENATIONHAVE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY?

Westman and colleagues wrote in 1970 that a “pattern is found in which one parent and a child team up to provide an effect on the other parent.” Westman, Clein, Swift, & Cramer, (1970). Role of child psychiatry in divorce. Archives of General Psychiatry, 23(5), 416‐420.

In 1976, Judith Wallerstein and Joan Kelly referred to an alliance between a “narcissistically enraged parent” and a particularly vulnerable child or adolescent who were “faithful and valuable battle allies in efforts to hurt and punish the other parent”.Wallerstein, J.S. and Kelley, J.B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256‐269.

Writing in 1989, Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee offered that some mothers could be “entangled with Medea like rage”. Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. Boston: Ticknor & Fields.



In 1993, Johnston noted the impact of polarizing parents in high conflict cases. She wrote that “strong alignments are probably most closely related to the behavioral phenomena Gardner referred to as parental alienation syndrome...”Johnston, J. R. (1993). Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. E. Depner & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential parenting: New vistas in family living (pp.109–135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Surveying the literature of the last 50 years, Bernet and colleagues (2010) made a strong case that many researchers or groups described the phenomenon of parental alienation independently in the 1980’s and 90’s.Bernet, W. et. al. (2010). Parental alienation, DSM‐5, and ICD‐11. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Writing in 2010, Joan Kelly pointed out that there was ““A few feminists and legal scholars continue to contest the very existence of child alienation; minimize its severity, impact, and duration; and strongly object to any court‐ordered educational or therapeutic interventions. However, there is broad consensus among the mental health and family law community that the risk of child alienation is increased in highly conflicted separations accompanied by protracted adversarial child custody disputes” (Kelly, 2010).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.



Carlos Rueda, conducted the first inter‐rater reliability study on PAS as part of a doctoral dissertation. Rueda found a high rate of agreement regarding the diagnostic criteria for PAS.

Rueda, C.A. (2004) An inter‐rater reliability study of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(5), 391‐403.

In 2006, Stephen Morrison conducted a second inter‐rater reliability study, using the same vignettes and PAS test instrument as Rueda (2004). In Morrison’s replication, the survey instrument and vignettes were sent to child custody and mental health practitioners in the U.S.. Morrison avoided specialists in Florida, as that was the primary source of respondents for the Rueda study. The intra‐class correlation coefficient values obtained in Morrison’s second inter‐rater reliability study all approach one and indicate significant agreement among evaluators.

Morrison, S.L. (2006) Parental alienation syndrome: An inter‐rater reliability study: Alienating behaviors ‐ related justice system issues. Hattiesburg, MS: University of Southern Mississippi.

10/20/2015

8



Evaluators Leona Kopetski and Claire Purcell conducted approximately 600 child custody evaluations in Colorado from 1975‐1995. They were designated the Family and Children’s Evaluation Team by their courts in Colorado. In the course of their 600 evaluations, the Team found that 20% of their cases involved a form of “psycho‐social pathology”.

By the time their research was published, the Colorado Family and Children’s Evaluation Team came to call the phenomena they were observing “parental alienation”. They observed that “alienating parents enforce their agenda by aligning with intrinsically sound theories or causes, then accusing the parent to be alienated of behavior that violates the tenets of those theories or causes”

Kopetski, L. M. (1998a). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome – Part I. Colorado Lawyer, 27(FEB), 65‐68.

TheKopetskistudies



Kopetski and Purcell characterized parents who alienated their children as follows:

“Obsessively preoccupied with the short‐comings of others.” With “A narcissistic or paranoid orientation to interactions and relationships with others. . . ”Having a “Reliance on defenses (such as splitting: ‘I am good, you are bad’And a “Family history in which there is an absence of awareness of normal ambivalence and conflict about parents, enmeshment. . . . ”

Kopetski, L. M. (1998b). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome – Part II. Colorado Lawyer, 27(MAR), 61‐64;See also:Kopetski, L. M., Rand, D. C., & Rand, R. (2006). Incidence, gender, and false al‐legations of child abuse: Data on 84 parental alienation syndrome cases. In Richard A. Gardner, S. Richard Sauber, & Demosthenes Lorandos (Eds.), The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, clinical, and legal considerations (pp. 65‐70). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.



Kopetski and Purcell characterized the family dynamics:

“... the relationship between the child and the alienating parent is disturbed” (Kopetski, 1998b).

“The child’s need for a relationship with two parents is not recognized…” (Kopetski, 1998a).

“The alienating parent shares with the child a distorted, essentially negative perception of the parent to be alienated” (Kopetski, 1998a).

Kopetski, L. M. (1998a). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome – Part I. Colorado Lawyer, 27(FEB), 65‐68. Kopetski, L. M. (1998b). Identifying cases of parent alienation syndrome – Part II. Colorado Lawyer, 27(MAR), 61‐64

10/20/2015

9

After reviewing 700 cases of family counseling, mediation, and forensic evaluation, Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin (1991) published their research. Describing the parental conduct they observed as brainwashing, they identified and described the techniques these brainwashing parents used:

denying and not acknowledging the social existence of the other parent;

attacking something about the character, lifestyle, past, present, or future of the target parent;

discussing visitation arrangements with the child. . .

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

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. . . Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage: Dealing with programmed and brainwashed children. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

TheClawarandRivlinstudies





Canadian researchers Barbara Jo Fidler and Nicholas Bala have reported on a number of clinical observations, case reviews and qualitative as well as empirical studies:

Fidler, B. J., Bala, N., & Saini, (2012). Children who resist postsepartion parental contact: A differential approach for legal and mental health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.Fidler, B. & Bala, N. (Eds.) (2010a). Special Issue on Alienated Children in Divorce and Separation: Emerging Approaches for Families and Courts. Family Court Review, 48(1), 1‐240.Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010b). Children resisting post‐separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums. Family Court Review, 48(1), 10‐47.Fidler, B. J., Bala, N., Birnbaum, R., & Kavassalis, K. (2008). Understanding child alienation and its impact on families. In Barbara Jo Fidler et al (Eds.), Challenging issues in child custody assessments: A guide for legal and mental health professionals (pp. 203‐229). Toronto, ON: Thomson Carswell.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(1), 79‐137.Birnbaum, R., Fidler, B. J., & Kavassalis, K. (2007). Child custody assessments: A resource guide for legal and mental health professionals. Toronto, ON: Carswell.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.

FidlerandBalastudies



HOWBADISTHISTHINGFORKIDS...REALLY?

Amy Baker studied adults who had experienced parental alienation as children. She conducted a retrospective, qualitative study in which she conducted semi‐structured interviews of adults who had been child victims of parental alienation.

Baker, A. J. L. (2005). The long‐term effect of parental alienation on adult children: A qualitative research study. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(4), 289‐302.Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

10/20/2015

10



WhatdidBakerfind?

High rates of low self‐esteem to a point of self‐hatred;

Significant episodes of depression in 70% of the subjects;

A lack of trust in themselves and in other people;

and alienation from their own children in 50% of the subjects.

Approximately one‐third of the sample reported having had serious problems with drugs or alcohol during adolescence, using such substances to cope with painful feelings arising from loss and parental conflict.

Baker found that these adults, victimized as children, had difficulty trusting that anyone would ever love them. Two‐thirds had been divorced once and one quarter more than once.

About half of Baker’s sample reported that they had become alienated from their own children.



The Colorado Family and Children’s Evaluation Team found that alienated children of all ages suffer the following effects:

symptoms of anxious attachment or separationunusual distress during transitions from one parent to the othersleep disturbancesfailure to achieve expected levels of impulse control“disorganization”“social isolation” “moodiness”“often emancipate prematurely from adult control “becoming defiant and rigid”Problems with self‐concept and self‐esteem Problems with “reality testing” resulting from the alienated child mirroring the psycho‐social pathology of the alienating parentProblems with developing appropriate responses to grief and loss of significant others

WhatdidKopetski&Purcellfind?



Poor reality testingIllogical cognitive operationsSimplistic and rigid information processingInaccurate or distorted interpersonal perceptionsDisturbed and compromised interpersonal functioningSelf‐hatredLow self‐esteem or inflated self‐esteem or omnipotencePseudo‐maturityGender‐identity problemsPoor differentiation of self (enmeshment)Aggression and conduct disordersDisregard for social norms and authorityPoor impulse controlEmotional constriction, passivity, or dependencyLack of remorse or guilt

Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2010b). Children resisting post‐separation contact with a parent: Concepts, controversies, and conundrums. Family Court Review, 48(1), 10‐47.

WhatdidFidler&Balareport?

10/20/2015

11



In their follow up volume to the classic ABA sponsored study, Children Held Hostage, Clawar and Rivlin (2013) provided an updated list of the most common potential effects of the brainwashing they observed in children:

LonelinessConflict with ParentsDepressionSleep problemsSubstance AbuseSpeech ProblemsSexual PromiscuityPoor Body ImagePoor Eating HabitsEating DisordersWeight Loss/Weight GainDisheveled Living SpacePoor Executive Function (Disorganization)

WhatdidClawar&Rivlinreport?



Diminished ActivityPsycho‐Somatic DistortionsFeelings of IsolationIncreased Use of Technology as an EscapeLack of FriendsSibling Conflict (Including Violence)Heightened Fantasy LifeDiminished Attention SpanSocial Identity ProblemRegressive BehaviorsAnxietyConflicts in Peer RelationshipsSchool DysfunctionMemory Loss

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (2013). Children held hostage: Identifying brain‐washed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.



HOWDOYOUDIAGNOSEIT?

10/20/2015

12





WHATDOYOUSEEINTHEALIENATORS?In their early their research, Clawar and Rivlin found that in their sample, the most common motivational factors for parents who brainwashed and then held their children hostage were:

RevengeSelf‐righteousnessFear of losing the childSense of past historyProprietary perspectiveJealousyChild supportLoss of identityOut of sight, out of mindSelf‐protectionMaintaining the marital/adult relationship through conflictPower, influence, control and domination

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage: Dealing with programmed and brainwashed children. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.



Amy Baker’s research has identified Seventeen Strategies of Alienating Parents:

1. BADMOUTHING: Alienating Parent (AP) uses verbal and non‐verbal communications that convey to the child that the targeted parent (TP) is unloving, unsafe, and unavailable. Existing flaws are exaggerated and non‐existent flaws are manufactured. Statements are made frequently, intensely, with great sincerity, and unbalanced by anything positive.

2. LIMITING CONTACT: The AP violates parenting plans and/or takes advantage of ambiguities in the plan to maximize time with the child. The TP has fewer opportunities to counter the badmouthing message, leading to the attenuation of the parent‐child relationship. The child acclimates to spending less time with the TP and the court might even reward the AP by instituting the new “status quo” as the permanent schedule.

SEVENTEENSTRATEGIESOFALIENATINGPARENTS

10/20/2015

13



3. INTERFERING WITH COMMUNICATION: The AP demands constant access to the child when the child is with the TP but does not reciprocate when the child is with him/her. Phones are not answered, e‐mail messages are blocked, and messages are not forwarded. The TP has fewer opportunities to be a part of the child’s daily world and share with the child the small moments that make up a child’s life.

4. INTERFERING WITH SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION: Thinking about, talking about, and looking at pictures of a parent while away can help a child feel close and connected to an absent parent. The AP creates an environment in which the child does not feel free to engage in these activities with respect to the TP. Alienating parents, however, are able to make their presence felt to the child even when the child is with the TP. The child is preoccupied with thoughts of the AP, making frequent calls to check in, following rules imposed by the AP, worrying that the AP will be upset or angry. The child’s mind and heart are preoccupied with the AP and there is no room left for the child’s thoughts and feelings about the TP.

5. WITHDRAWAL OF LOVE: APs make their approval of paramount importance to the child; so much so that the child would do anything to avoid the loss of love that is experienced when the child has disappointed or angered that parent. Typically what angers and hurts the AP most is the child’s love and affection for the TP. Thus, in order to secure the love of one parent, the child must relinquish the love of the other. Although this is not something likely to be explicit to the child, it will be apparent to the TP that the child lives in fear of losing the AP’s love and approval.



6. TELLING THE CHILD THAT THE TP IS DANGEROUS: A particular form of badmouthing, this involves creating the impression in the child that the TP is or has been dangerous. Stories might be told about ways in which the TP has tried to harm the child, about which the child has no memory but will believe to be true nonetheless, especially if the story is told often enough.

7. FORCING THE CHILD TO CHOOSE: The AP will exploit ambiguities in the parenting plan and create opportunities to seduce/compel the child away from the TP by scheduling competing activities and promising valued items and privileges. If both parents are present at the same event/location the child will favor the AP and ignore or be rude to the TP.

8. TELLING THE CHILD THAT THE TP DOES NOT LOVE HIM OR HER: Another specific form of badmouthing occurs when the AP allows or encourages the child to conclude that the TP does not love him or her. The AP might make statements that conflate the end of the marriage with the end of the parent’s love of the child. (i.e. Mommy left us, or Daddy doesn’t love us anymore). The AP will foster the belief in the child that she is being rejected by the TP and distort every situation to make it appear as if that is the case.



9. CONFIDING IN THE CHILD: The AP will involve the child in discussions about legal mattes and share with the child personal and private information about the TP that the child has no need to know. The AP will portray him/herself as the victim of the TP, inducing the child to feel pity for and protective of the AP, and anger and hurt toward the TP. The confidences are shared in such a way as to flatter the child and appeal to his/her desire to be trusted and involved in adult matters.

10. FORCING THE CHILD TO REJECT THE TP: APs create situations in which the child actively rejects the TP, such as call the TP to cancel upcoming parenting time or request that the TP not attend an important school or athletic event. Not only is the TP being denied something that s/he truly desires but s/he is being delivered the news by the child, leading to feelings of hurt and frustration. The TP may respond by lashing out at the child, further damaging their already fragile relationship. Further, once children have hurt a parent, the alienation will become entrenched as the child justifies his/her behavior by devaluing the TP.

11. ASKING THE CHILD TO SPY ON THE TP: TPs usually have information in their files, desk, or computer that is of interest to the AP, such as paystubs, receipts, legal documents, medical reports, and so forth. An AP might suggest directly to a child or hint that the TP has information that s/he is not sharing with the AP. The AP will likely create the impetus in the child by linking the information to the child’s desires (i.e., if we knew whether Daddy got a raise we could ask for more money and buy a new dog for you). Once children betray a parent by spying on them, they will likely feel guilty and uncomfortable being around that parent, thus furthering the alienation.

10/20/2015

14



12. ASKING THE CHILD TO KEEP SECRETS FROM THE TP: The AP will ask or hint that certain information should be withheld from the TP in order to protect the child’s interests. Such as, “If Mommy knew that we were planning on taking a trip she would take me to court and try to stop it. Let’s not tell her until Saturday, when it will be too late for her to interfere.” Like spying, keeping secrets creates psychological distance between the TP and the child, who may feel guilty and uncomfortable with the TP. Obviously, when the TP discovers that the child withheld the information, the parent will be hurt and/or angry at the child.

13. REFERRING TO THE TP BY FIRST NAME: Rather than saying “Mommy/Daddy” or “Your Mommy/Your Daddy” the AP will use the first name of the TP when talking about that parent to the child. This may result in the child referring to the TP by first name as well. The message to the child is that the TP is no longer someone whom the AP respects as an authority figure for the child and no longer someone who has a special bond with the child. By referring to the TP by first name, the AP is demoting that parent to the level of a peer or neighbor.

14. REFERRING TO A STEP‐PARENT AS “MOM” OR “DAD” AND ENCOURAGING THE CHILD TO DO THE SAME: Once the AP is remarried, s/he will speak of the new partner as if that parent were the only mother/father of the child. This parent will be introduced to others (teachers, coaches, parents of friends) as the “mother/father” rather than as the step‐parent. The AP will refer to that parent as the mother/father to the child and create the expectation that the child will do so as well. If the TP should find out that the child is doing this, s/he will be hurt and angry with the child.



15. WITHHOLDING MEDICAL, ACADEMIC, AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE TP/ KEEPING TP’S NAME OFF MEDICAL, ACADEMIC, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS: All important forms from school, sports, religious education, and so forth ask for the information about the child’s mother and father. The AP will not provide information about the TP in the appropriate place on the form and may not include the information at all. In this way, the TP will be at a decided disadvantage in terms of accessing information, forging relationships, being contacted in emergencies, being invited to participate, being provided with changes in schedules/locations, and so forth. . .

16. CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO REMOVE ASSOCIATION WITH THE TP: If the AP is the mother, she may revert to using her maiden name after the divorce and will institute a practice of using that name for her children as well. If the AP is the mother and she remarries, she will assume the surname of her new husband and will institute a practice of using that new surname for her children as well. If the AP is the father, he may start referring to the child with a new nickname (convincing the child that s/he has always been called by this name) and in this way forge a new identity for the child in which the AP is the most important parent. The TPmay feel distant and awkward with the child who now refers to him or herself with a new name. The TP may feel that the name change represents a reaction of him/her and will experience hurt, sadness, and frustration because of that.



17. CULTIVATING DEPENDENCY/UNDERMINING THE AUTHORITY OF THE TP: Alienated children often speak of the AP as if that parent were perfect, exceptional, and in every way above reproach. They also behave as if they are dependent on that parent in a way that is not necessary or appropriate given the age and life experience. APs are able to develop dependency in their children rather than (as is typical of non‐alienating parents) help their children develop self‐sufficiency, critical thinking, autonomy, and independence. At the same time, they will undermine the authority of the TP in order to ensure that the child is loyal to only one parent. Examples include instituting rules that the child must follow even when with the TP, and mocking or overwriting the rules of the TP. The AP becomes elevated in the eyes of the child while the TP becomes less important and less meaningful.

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, 63‐78.Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties that Bind. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Baker, A. J. L. and Fine, P. (2013) “Educating Divorcing Parents: Taking them Beyond the High Road” in Baker, A. J. L. and Sauber, S. R. (Eds.)Working with Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. Routledge Press, Taylor and Francis Division, New York.

10/20/2015

15



WHATAREWESUPPOSEDTODOABOUTIT?Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies That Compromise Decisions in Court

and in TherapyRichard A. Warshak

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasFalse beliefs about the genesis of parental alienation and about appropriate remedies shape opinions and decisions

that fail to meet children’s needs. This article examines 10 mistaken assumptions: (a) children never unreasonably

reject the parent with whom they spend the most time, (b) children never unreasonably reject mothers, (c) each

parent contributes equally to a child’s alienation, (d) alienation is a child’s transient, short-lived response to the

parents’ separation, (e) rejecting a parent is a short-term healthy coping mechanism, (f) young children living with

an alienating parent need no intervention, (g) alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should dominate custody

decisions, (h) children who appear to function well outside the family need no intervention, (i) severely alienated

children are best treated with traditional therapy techniques while living primarily with their favored parent, and (j)

separating children from an alienating parent is traumatic. Reliance on false beliefs compromises investigations and

undermines adequate consideration of alternative explanations for the causes of a child’s alienation. Most critical,

fallacies about parental alienation shortchange children and parents by supporting outcomes that fail to provide

effective relief to those who experience this problem.Keywords: alienation, custody reversal, high-conflict divorce, parental alienation, reunificationCommon false beliefs about parental alienation lead therapists and

lawyers to give bad advice to their clients, evaluators to give inade-

quate recommendations to courts, and judges to reach injudicious

decisions. The increasing recognition of the phenomenon of chil-

dren’s pathological alienation from parents brings with it a prolifer-

ation of mistaken assumptions about the problem’s roots and reme-

dies. These assumptions fail to hold up in the light of research, case

law, or experience.In some instances, a professional may not have thought to question

the belief, or may lack sufficient experience and familiarity with

research literature to test the accuracy of the assumption. The more

often the fallacy is mentioned in professional presentations and pub-

lications, the more likely it becomes a woozle—a commonly accepted

idea that lacks grounding in persuasive evidence yet gains traction

through repetition to the point where people assume that it is true

(Nielsen, 2014). In other cases evaluators, therapists, and lawyers

make unreliable predictions based on the relatively small sample of

their practices. Some professionals hold rigid ideological positions

that inhibit receptivity to disconfirming facts or lead to intentional

evasion of data that conflict with desired conclusions (Lundgren &

Prislin, 1998; Martindale, 2005). Even those with no strong ideolog-

ical motivation to advocate a particular position are susceptible to

confirmation biases that predispose them to search for and focus on

information that supports previously held beliefs and expectations,

while overlooking, ignoring, or discounting facts that fail to conform

to their preconceived views (Greenberg, Gould-Saltman, & Gottlieb,

2008; Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, & Thelen, 2001; Rogerson, Gottlieb,

Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren, 2011). An untested assumption

about the significance of one factor, such as a generalization based on

a child’s age, may lead family law professionals to place undue

weight on that factor when making recommendations or decisions.

This article identifies 10 prevalent and strongly held assumptions and

myths about parental alienation found in reports by therapists, custody

evaluators, and child representatives (such as guardians ad litem), in case

law, and in professional articles. Ideas were determined to be fallacies if

they are contradicted by the weight of empirical research, by specific case

outcomes, or by the author’s more than three decades of experience

evaluating, treating, and consulting on cases with parental alienation

claims. The following discussion pertains to the pathological variant of

parental alienation and not to situations in which a child’s rejection of a

parent is proportional to the parent’s treatment of the child. The 10

fallacies about parental alienation fall into two categories: those that

predominantly relate to the genesis of parental alienation and those

concerned with remedies for the problem.

Fallacies About the Genesis of Parental Alienation1. Children Never Unreasonably Reject the ParentWith Whom They Spend the Most TimeIt is generally assumed that children will identify most closely

with the parent whom they see the most. When children live

RICHARD A. WARSHAK received his PhD in clinical psychology from the

University of Texas Health Science Center. He is a Clinical Professor of

Psychiatry at the UT Southwestern Medical Center and consults and

testifies internationally in child custody proceedings. He studies the psy-

chology of alienated children; children’s involvement in custody disputes;

and outcomes of divorce, child custody decisions, stepfamilies, relocations,

and parenting plans for young children. Also he develops educational

materials and interventions to help understand, prevent, and overcome

damaged parent–child relationships.CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to

Richard A. Warshak, 16970 Dallas Parkway, Suite 202, Dallas, TX 75248.

E-mail: [email protected]

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

© 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 46, No. 4, 000

0735-7028/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000031

1



Early identification of the high conflict cases

Early identification of the issues that need to be resolved

Setting, right at the start, firm rules about the expected conduct of the parents . . .

Setting a time frame within which the case must be concluded . . .

Setting a schedule within the time frame for all the steps that must be taken. . .

Sticking to the time limits; not permitting changes to the schedule . . .

Temporary orders relating to care and financial security of the children

Limiting the number of interim applications. . .

— monitoring the nature of the evidence that is presented

— ensuring that court orders are specific, clear and comprehensive

— ensuring that the temporary orders are followed.

Martinson, D. J. (2010). One case ‐ one specialized judge: Why courts have an ob‐ligation to manage alienation and other high‐conflict cases. Family Court Review, 48(1), 180‐189.

HonorableDonnaMartinsonQ.C.RetiredJusticeoftheB.C.SupremeCourt



A few of her teaching points to Judges and Attorneys:

These Cases Must Have Priority and be Expedited

Enter No Maligning Orders as Soon as Possible

Order Specific and Precise Parenting Times and Places

Build the Sanctions into Your Court Order

Know the Difference Between Regular Therapy and Reunification

Never Base Your Strategy on “Getting Through” to the Alienating Parent

Lowrance, M. (2013). A judge’s perspective on parental alienation. In D. Lorandos, W. Bernet & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals (pp. 502‐519). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

HonorableMicheleLowrance,RetiredJudgeoftheFamilyCourtofChicago,Illinois

10/20/2015

16



Summary‐ “TheThree“S’s”

SymptomsStrategiesSequelae



For the diagnosis of PA, the child must manifest the following two behaviors:

• Campaign of denigration against the target parent. The child often presents complaints in a litany, some trivial, many false or irrational. The child often denies ever having experienced good times with the target parent when that is clearly not the case. Alienated children are likely to eschew the potential for reconciliation.

• Frivolous rationalizations for the child’s criticism of the target parent. The child’s reactions of hatred or disdain are unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances they describe. They may claim to be fearful, but they do so easily and without typical fear reactions.

Symptoms



Also, the child must manifest two or more of the following six attitudes and behaviors:

• Lack of ambivalence. The child manifests all‐or‐none thinking, idealizing the alienating parent and devaluing the target parent.

• Independent‐thinker phenomenon. The child proudly states the decision to reject the target parent is his or her own, not influenced by the alienating parent.

• Reflexive support of the alienating parent against the target parent. The child immediately and automatically takes the alienating parent’s side in a disagreement.

• Absence of guilt over exploitation and mistreatment of the target parent. The child may be oppositional, rude, disrespectful, and even violent toward the target parent and shows little or no remorse for those behaviors.

• Borrowed scenarios. The child makes rehearsed statements that are identical to those made by the alienating parent. Younger siblings may mimic what they have heard their older sibling say. They usually are unable to elaborate on the details of the events they allege.

• Spread of the child’s animosity toward the target parent’s extended family. Expressed feelings and hatred often include the extended family or friends of the target parent, even when the child has had little or no contact with them. Occasionally, the child’s hatred extends to pets of the target parent. [Adapted from Lorandos et al., 2013]

10/20/2015

17



1. Badmouthing

2. Limiting Contact

3. Interfering With Communication

4. Interfering With Symbolic Communication

5. Withdrawal Of Love

6. Telling The Child That The TP Is Dangerous

7. Forcing The Child To Choose

8. Telling The Child That The TP Does Not Love Him Or Her

9. Confiding In The Child

10. Forcing The Child To Reject The TP

11. Asking The Child To Spy On The TP

12. Asking The Child To Keep Secrets From The TP

13. Referring To The TP By First Name

14. Referring To A Step‐Parent As “Mom” Or “Dad” And Encouraging The Child To Do The Same

15. Withholding Medical, Academic, And Other Important Information From The TP/ Keeping TP’s Name Off Medical, Academic, And Other Relevant Documents

16. Changing The Child’s Name To Remove Association With The TP

17. Cultivating Dependency/Undermining The Authority Of The TP

Strategies



Anxious attachment or separation

Unusual distress during transitions from one parent to the other

Sibling Conflict (Including Violence)

Regressive Behaviors

Conflicts in Peer Relationships

Disheveled Living Space

Poor Body Image

Depression

Substance Abuse

Eating Disorders

Sleep disturbances

Diminished Attention Span

Self‐hatred

Low self‐esteem

Pseudo‐maturity

Gender‐identity problems

Sequelae



Poor differentiation of self

Psychosomatic Distortions

Simplistic and rigid information processing

Inaccurate or distorted interpersonal perceptions

Lack of remorse or guilt

Emotional constriction

Defiant and rigid behaviors

Poor Executive Function (Disorganization)

Feelings of Isolation

Increased Use of Technology as an Escape

Disregard for social norms and authority

Poor impulse control

Illogical cognitive operations

Aggression and conduct disorders

Failure to achieve expected levels of impulse control

Poor reality testing

Sequelae.....

10/20/2015

18

©Demosthenes Lorandos, PH.D., J.D.Attorney & Licensed Psychologist

Lorandos Joshi, PC

PARENTALALIENATIONIsChildAbuse...........