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

Abstract

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...

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

“…The fact is that well‐informed consultants, counselors, family court practitioners, researchers and advocates are using PA constructs responsibly to respond to complex and vexing problems. A perusal of the Family Court Review April, 2020 special issue on children resisting contact with a parent (Fidler & Bala, ) illustrates the increasingly nuanced conceptual, multi‐level clinical thinking about this matter.…”

“…In response to the deficiencies in the Single‐Factor Model, during the past 20 years, many family court professionals have explicitly adopted or developed more nuanced, multi‐factor models to guide their assessments of and to intervene with families where a child is resisting or refusing contact with a parent. As illustrated in this Special Issue (Fidler & Bala, ), these models increasingly draw upon a wide range of basic and applied social science research (Garber, , , ; Judge & Deutsch, ).…”

The use of parental alienation constructs by family justice system professionals: A survey of belief systems and practice implications

“…There also was muddle surrounding the issue of whether PABs are necessary and sufficient to find PA in a family. Most practitioners in this survey and in other research agree that PABs should be considered a serious risk factor for child resistance, but still, one that needs careful and multi‐factor assessment before specifying the likely outcome for any given child or family (Baker, 2007; Bow et al, 2009; Spruijt et al, 2005 Johnston & Sullivan, 2020; Fidler & Bala, 2020).…”

“…This study suggests that the family law field has moved from the narrower concept of PAS to a broader understanding that parent-child contact problems and dynamics occur in various family situations for different reasons. This broader view reflects the reality that we now have a better understanding of how parents and children contribute to contact problems (Johnston & Sullivan, 2020;Fidler & Bala, 2020). Despite this movement forward, empirical evidence that differentiates between competing definitions of PA and favored treatment options remains elusive.…”

“…Opponents of the use of the PA construct are concerned about the use of PA as a legal strategy to counter allegations of IPV or child abuse (Sheehy & Lapierre, 2020 with 10 authors), with abused children and their victim mothers being wrongly labeled as ‘PA cases’ when PA is used to counter valid concerns about a mother's or child's abuse at the hands of the other parent (Faller, 2020). Some professional publications aim to provide multiple perspectives, noting the concerns on all sides when misuse or misdiagnosis of PA is brought into family court (Fidler & Bala, 2020 with 28 authors; Warshak, 2020). In total, these publications represent diverse perspectives and international professional readerships.…”