Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence.

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA-from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Several socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence, focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.Persistent erroneous assumption that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child's resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research and practice.Four principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals for preventive-interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.

Section: Working Definition and Scope Of Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

“…Although some advocates (usually parents rather than professionals or researchers) seem to focus only on “alienation” while other advocates focus on abuse or partner violence as the reason for a child rejecting a parent, the multi‐factorial model initially advanced by Kelly and Johnston in their 2001 article in the Family Court Review is widely accepted. This model has been widely discussed and elaborated (e.g., Drozd, Olesen, & Saini, ; Fidler & Bala, ; Fidler, Bala, & Saini, ; Garber, , ; Harman, Kruk, & Hines, ; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, ; Polak & Saini, ; Saini, Drozd, & Olesen, ; Saini, Johnston, Fidler, & Bala, , ), and further refined in this Special Issue (Johnston & Sullivan, ). There are many reasons why a child may resist contact with a parent.…”

Section: Multiple Causes Concepts and Differentiation Of Parent–chilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Developmental research and legal policy in child protection, as well as in custody and access contexts, support children having healthy and safe relationships with both parents; this applies to children who may have been abused and those who may have been alienated. Accordingly, making efforts for a child to develop or repair a relationship with a parent needs to be the goal of interventions, unless there is significant risk where it may be best for the child to be protected from the parent posing the risk factors, including cases of on‐going risk of violence or abuse, and also cases of severe alienation, which are also situations where the alienating parent has been emotionally abusive (Harman et al, ; Johnston, ).…”

Section: Expanding and Refining Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the last 10 years, and in some cases building on previous efforts and research, there has been considerable reporting of research and other publications on alienation. For example, there have been numerous publications on concepts, definitions, diagnosis, differentiation, measurement tools and the impact and experience of alienated parents and young adults who reported being alienated (e.g., Baker, , ; Baker, Burkhard, & Albertson‐Kelly, ; Harman, Leder‐Elder, & Biringen, ; Balmer, Matthewson, & Haines, ; Bernet, ; Bernet & Baker, ; Bernet, von Boch‐Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, ; Bernet, Gregory, Reay, & Rohner, ; Garber, , , ; Hands & Warshak, ; Harman, Lorandos, Biringen, & Grubb, ; Harman et al, ; Johnston & Goldman, ; Lorandos, Bernet, & Sauber, ; Polak & Saini, ; Rowen & Emery, , , , ; Rowlands, ; Whitecombe, ).…”

Section: More and Better Research? Absolutely And…mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums Of “Alienation:” Lessons Learned In A Decade And Reflections On Challenges Ahead

Fidler¹,

Bala²

2020

There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others. It is widely acknowledged that PCCP cases are most fruitfully understood from a multi-factorial perspective. While some cases may be totally the "fault" of one parent (a parent perpetrating violence or abuse, or a parent exhibiting alienating behavior), in many situations both parents bear some responsibility: focusing on a single cause is rarely helpful. Most professionals and researchers agree that the challenge in practice is to distinguish between false positives and false negatives for both alienation (or unjustified rejection) and realistic estrangement (justified rejection). There is continuing controversy over whether the concept of "alienation" should be used, especially in court proceedings, and a related disagreement about the extent to which family courts are now failing to respond adequately to cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) or child abuse when alienation is also raised. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active perspective-taking will contribute to effective professional involvement. Increased parent education and prevention can play an important role, although for the more severe PCCP cases the family courts system will continue to play a critical role. While more research must be done, given the complexity of issues, conclusive findings are unlikely in the near future. Legislators and family justice professionals must make decisions based on a thorough analysis of each family's circumstances in the context of our present knowledge, taking account of the limits of the law. They will often face the conundrum of making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Key Points For The Family Court Community:There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related to parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others.It is widely acknowledged that PCCPs cases are best understood and addressed by relying on a multi-factorial perspective, a family-systems approach and coordinated professional services.Attention to false positives and false negatives for both alienation (unjustified rejection) and for realistic estrangement (justified rejection) is necessary. For either of these types of contact problems and for cases involving elements of both, it may be in the child's best interest to remedy the strained parent-child relationship and for the child to maintain contact with both parents.Legal and mental health professionals involved in decision making, forensic and clinical assessments, and psychoeducational and clinical interventions face challenges in fact finding and correcting for ubiquitous cognitive biases. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active dialogue with openness to different perspectives will contribute to effective profess...

“…Severe cases characterized by extreme and pervasive alienating behavior by definition involve emotional harm/abuse (Harman & Kruk, ). Absent appropriate legal measures to restrict or suspend contact with an alienating parent, mental health interventions will not succeed and are considered a contraindicated treatment approach in the most severe cases (Fidler & Ward, ; Warshak, ).…”

Section: Clinical and Legal Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to Severe Parent–Child Rejection Cases Without a Parentectomy: A Blended Sequential Intervention Model and the Role of the Courts

Polak¹,

Altobelli²,

Popielarczyk³

2020

There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent-child contact problems post-separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the "severe" category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent "parentectomy" of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Authors provide a review of the state of the research literature with respect to differentiation and available treatment approaches for resist-refuse contact cases.Authors propose the use of the Blended Sequential Model, an innovative clinical model developed for severe cases of resist-refuse dynamics.Authors describe the important role of judicial leadership in resist/refuse contact cases. Authors argue the need to develop heterodox models of interim judicial decision making in resist-refuses cases.Corresponding: shely.polak@utoronto.ca † This paper was written for and published in the context of continuing professional education only. Any and all views expressed are expressed in an academic nature rather than judicial capacity.