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

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...

Section: Multiple Causes Concepts and Differentiation Of Parent–chilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Multiple Causes Concepts and Differentiation Of Parent–chilmentioning

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

“…The literature often describes these parent–child problems in binary terms—it is abuse/violence or alienation (Drozd & Olesen, , ; Fidler & Ward, ; Kelly & Johnston, ). In fact, however, many of these cases are multifactorial (Johnston & Sullivan, ) or hybrid (Friedlander & Walters, ) and require attention to traumatic experiences as well as to alienating behaviors.…”

Section: What Is Trauma?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trauma‐Informed Interventions in Parent–Child Contact Cases

Deutsch¹,

Drozd²,

Ajoku³

2020

Parent-child contact problems may arise in the context of high conflict separation/divorce dynamics between parents. In cases where there are parent-child contact problems and children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents, there may also be incidents of child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, or compromised parenting that can be experienced by a parent or child as traumatic. The circumstances around separation and/or post-divorce often result in intense stress for families. In this paper we distinguish between the stressful circumstances that may arise as a result of high interparental conflict and pulls for alignment from a parent, and the real or perceived trauma as a factor which contributes to resistance or refusal of a child to have contact with a parent. Interventions to address both trauma responses and the resist-refuse dynamics are differentiated and discussed. After screening and assessment, the intent is to treat trauma responses with short-term, evidence-based therapy, either before or concurrent with co-parent and family intervention. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Parent-child contact problems may have many causes. When children resist contact with a parent the multiple factors including trauma, that result in this problem must be explored.Assessing the impact and symptoms of interparental conflict and trauma on children and coparents, including emotional dysregulation resulting in feelings of being overwhelmed or needing to avoid is necessary to proceed with a family intervention For family intervention to be successful It is necessary for each family member to be able to manage distressing emotions without feeling overwhelmed or numb and to be able to process information accurately. These issues may result in one of the treatment components that can occur before or at the same time as the family intervention.Delaying contact with a parent generally results in more negative characterization, anxiety and polarization and is generally not recommended. Instead safe, structured contact to begin the process of desensitization should occur once the parent and child have basic skills of coping with and managing distressing thoughts and feelings.

“…There are many reasons why a child may resist or refuse contact with a parent, and an assessment of the forms and pathways of strained parent–child relationships is an essential part of intervention processes (Drozd & Olesen, ; Fidler, Bala, & Saini, ; Kelly & Johnston, ). The majority of refusal cases are hybrid, with both parents engaging in alienating conduct or having some responsibility for breakdown in the relationship with one parent, and it is rare to have cases of “pure parental alienation” (Fidler & Bala, ; Johnston & Sullivan, ). Yet, as a child's resistance to contact can become entrenched, to prevent an irreversible loss of the relationship between the rejected parent and child, it is imperative to identify and respond to the contributing factors that led to the situation and have all the family members contribute to the solution (Cyr et al, ; Pruett & Drozd, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interdisciplinary Case Management Protocol for Child Resistance or Refusal Dynamics^†

Cyr¹,

Poitras²,

Godbout³

2020

High‐conflict parental separation cases associated with child's estrangement or contact refusal take an unusually large amount of court time and generate high emotional costs for parents and children. This paper reports on a study of a research‐based pilot project and protocol, called the Parenting Conflict Resolution (PCR), which is intended to reduce parental conflict, improve interparental communication, and support or restore the parent–child relationship. The protocol was developed at the Superior Court in Quebec City (Canada), and involves single judge case management, and lawyers' commitment to have the child's best interests as their primary consideration and to guide their clients to trust the process. The assigned judge and lawyers have the ongoing involvement of a mandated psychotherapist, taking a family systems approach with the case. The PCR also requires the parents to participate in a psycho‐educational, introspective group program to work on co‐parenting and communication skills. Ongoing communication between the professionals involved in the PCR is required to ensure cohesion and accountability. This pilot project was implemented with 10 high‐conflict families, 6 of which presented with the child's resistance or refusal to see one parent. A qualitative data study was undertaken into the experiences of all the participants. The most salient result is the resumption of parent–child contact in all six contact refusal cases. Discussion highlights key elements to successfully address these cases: (a) interdisciplinary program delivery, (b) systemic understanding of the contact problems, (c) focus on the child's best interest, (d) single judge assigned to the case, (e) lawyers' support of the parents' participation, and (f) psychotherapist reporting to the court.