Divorce related malicious mother syndrome

Courts have been dealing with alienating behaviors in high conflict family litigation for hundreds of years. Experts in the behavioral sciences have been writing about mothers and fathers manipulating their children to disparage the other parent for more than seventy years. But in the last two decades some social scientists and legal professionals have questioned the legitimacy of parental alienation as a concept and its admissibility in child abuse and child custody litigation. This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty‐four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation. Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.

Section: Statement Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018

Lorandos¹

2020

“…Understanding the short‐ and long‐term effects of alienation on children is crucial when considering if, when and how there should be intervention. The literature consistently reports that alienated children are at risk for emotional distress and adjustment difficulties and further, at greater risk than children from litigating families who are not alienated (e.g., Burrill, 2006a; Cartwright, 1993; Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Dunne & Hedrick, 1994; Gardner, 1992a, 2006; Garrity & Baris, 1994; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Kopetski, 1998a, 1998b, Johnston, 2003; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005c; Lampel, 1996; Lee & Olesen, 2001; Lowenstein, 2006; Lund, 1995; Racusin & Copans, 1994; Rand, 1997a, 1997b; Rand, Rand, & Kopetski, 2005; Stahl, 1999; Stoltz & Ney, 2002; Turkat 1994, 1999; Waldron & Joanis, 1996; Walsh & Bone, 1997; Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989; Ward & Harvey, 1993; Warshak, 2010a). Clinical observations, case reviews and both qualitative and empirical studies uniformly indicate that alienated children may exhibit: (1) poor reality testing; (2) illogical cognitive operations; (3) simplistic and rigid information processing; (4) inaccurate or distorted interpersonal perceptions; (5) disturbed and compromised interpersonal functioning; (6) self‐hatred; (7) low self esteem (internalize negative parts of rejected parent, self doubt about own perceptions, self blame for rejecting parent or abandoning siblings, mistrust, feel unworthy or unloved, feel abandoned) or inflated self‐esteem or omnipotence; (8) pseudo‐maturity; (9) gender‐identity problems; (10) poor differentiation of self (enmeshment); (11) aggression and conduct disorders; (12) disregard for social norms and authority; (13) poor impulse control; (14) emotional constriction, passivity, or dependency; and (15) lack of remorse or guilt.…”

Section: Impact Of Alienationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These parents may be rigidly defended and moralistic, perceive themselves to be flawless and virtuous, externalize responsibility onto others and lack insight into their own behavior and the impact of their behavior has on others (Bagby, Nicholson, Buis, Radovanovic, & Fidler, 1999;Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997;Siegel, 1996). Psychological disturbance, including histrionic, paranoid, and narcissistic personality disorders or characteristics, psychosis, suicidal behavior and substance abuse are common among alienating parents (Baker, 2006;Clawar & Rivlin, 1991;Gardner, 1992b;Hoppe & Kenney, 1994;Kopetski, 1998aKopetski, , 1998bJohnston & Campbell, 1988;Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005a;Lampel, 1996;Siegel & Langford, 1998;Rand, 1997a;Racusin & Copans, 1994;Turkat, 1994Turkat, , 1999Warshak, 2010a). Janet Johnston and her colleagues compared parents, some of whom were alienating, participating in custody evaluations with data from two nonpatient samples of separated parents (Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005a).…”

Section: The Favored Parentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children Resisting Postseparation Contact With a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums

Fidler¹,

Bala

2010

This article provides an overview of the key concepts, themes, issues, and possible mental health and legal interventions related to children's postseparation resistance to having contact with one parent. We maintain that the too often strongly gendered polemic on alienation and abuse is polarizing and needs to be replaced with a more nuanced and balanced discussion that recognizes the complexity of the issues so that the needs of children and families can be better met. This article reviews the historical development of the concept of alienation; discusses the causes, dynamics, and differentiation of various types of parent child contact problems; and summarizes the literature on the impact of alienation on children. These are complex cases. A significant portion of the cases in which alienation is alleged are not in fact alienation cases; for those where alienation is present, interventions will vary depending on the degree of the alienation. More severe alienation cases are unlikely to be responsive to therapeutic or psycho-educational interventions in the absence of either a temporary interruption of contact between the child and the alienating parent or a more permanent custody reversal. We conclude with a summary of recommendations for practice and policy, including the need for early identification and intervention to prevent the development of severe cases, interdisciplinary collaboration and further development and research of interventions.f cre_1287 10..47

“…Writing about children having “poisoned minds” and rejecting a parent in the context of separation dates back more than a century, and gained significant prominence in the 1980's, with the work of Gardner () and other mental health professionals in that decade. There was an understandable reaction to the focus in the last decades of the twentieth century on alienation of children from fathers as a result of the actions of “malicious mothers” (Turkat, ) and the lack of attention to children who were resistant to contact with a father due to his violence, abuse or limited parenting, and some critics dismissed the concept of alienation as “junk science” (Bruch, ).…”

Section: Multiple Causes Concepts and Differentiation Of Parent–chilmentioning

confidence: 99%

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...