Parental alienation is emotional abuse that harms children, says Dr. Jennifer Harman and Edward Kruk. They call for urgent legal reforms to recognize and prevent this widespread form of child abuse.
Great job Richard on a good article and good responses to the comments. Keep it up.
What is missing from this discussion is that there are forensic models for differentiating between PA and estrangement. All PA experts agree that false PA claims and false DV claims can be made. We do not disallow all claims because of the possibility of fraud. Rather, the proper course of action is proper diagnosis of all claims and issue and therefore to making educated decisions. When this is done, the concerns of many of the comments on this article are taken care adequately.
e.g. Childress does a great job in providing therapists and psychologists evaluating models for determining PA. all readily available for anyone to read on his website
Adult children reported a multitude of alienating behaviors that damaged their relationship with the Target Parent and their own well-being. This theme broke down into seven sub-themes:
Abuse and control. Participants were emotionally and physically abused by the Alienating Parent. For example, they were made to feel fear or guilt when they didn’t comply with the Alienating Parent’s view of the Target Parent.
Denigration of the targeted parent—to the point where it damaged the child’s bond with the Target Parent.
Adultification—in which their parent inappropriately disclosed information and sought support during custody disputes.
Disrupting alienated adult child and targeted parent relationship. The bond between children and the Target Parent was damaged. Some moved to different states or overseas, making a relationship or even communication with the Target Parent difficult. Others were told that the Target Parent didn’t love them.
Perceptions of the Alienating Parent’s characteristics—including self-absorption, criticalness, and lacking in empathy and insight into how their behavior impacts others—even when confronted by their child.
Neglect. Basic needs and safety were disregarded.
Alienated adult child experience suppressed. Participants pushed down their thoughts, emotions, and memories, particularly regarding the Target Parent.
Parental alienation is a sensitive and complex issue that judges encounter in family court cases, particularly those involving high-conflict separations or divorces. It involves a child’s strong alliance with one parent, referred to as the preferred parent or alienating parent, and the rejection of the other parent, known as the target parent, without legitimate justification. Judges are responsible for making decisions prioritizing the child’s best interests, so understanding their views and approach to parental alienation is crucial.
Judges view parental alienation as a form of child abuse and treat it accordingly. Thus, they strive to make decisions that protect the child from harm and maintain healthy relationships with both parents. Often, the court considers the evidence presented and the child’s thoughts, feelings, and wishes when determining an appropriate course of action. Professionals such as child psychologists or counselors may also weigh in on the situation, providing further insight and helping the judge reach a decision that serves the child’s best interests.
Judges must demonstrate empathy, understanding, and objectivity, as parental alienation cases can be challenging and emotionally taxing for all parties involved. The ultimate goal is to preserve and foster healthy familial bonds while addressing and mitigating the harmful effects of parental alienation on the child and the targeted parent.
Parental alienation has been defined by some as a serious mental condition in children exposed to parental alienating behaviours [1,2]. Parental alienation can be identified through the presence of five factors: (1) the child refuses, opposes, or avoids a relationship with a parent; (2) the child had a positive relationship with that parent before they rejected them; (3) there is no evidence of abuse or neglect perpetrated by the rejected parent; (4) the other parent has used multiple parental alienating behaviours; (5) the child exhibits behavioural manifestations of parental alienation [3]. Consideration of parental alienation as a mental condition diagnosed in children has attracted criticism in the literature [4]. Others take a broader view of parental alienation with a focus on the nature and outcome of parental alienating behaviours [5]. Parental alienating behaviours are considered a complex cluster of strategies used by alienating parents to damage and sever the relationship between the child and the child’s other parent (targeted parent). It has been suggested that parental alienating behaviours are best understood in the context of family violence, whereby parental alienation is the outcome of an abusive process perpetrated by the alienating parent [5]. Parental alienating behaviours can include the alienating parent discrediting the targeted parent by sabotaging, undermining, and manipulating their relationship with the child [6]. It is thought that at least 19% of the population in the United States has been exposed to parental alienating behaviours [7]. This contrasts with parental estrangement, where the parent–child relationship has been negatively affected, usually with a sound rationale for the child’s rejection of the parent [5,8].
Brainwashing Techniques used by Alienating Parents
“Programming” and “Brainwashing” are two terms used by Dr. Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin [1] to describe the methods and techniques used by alienating parents to manipulate their children into rejecting and/or hating the target parent. According to Clawar & Rivlin (2013), “programming and brainwashing is a process (intentional and unintentional) whereby a parent … attempts to limit, damage, and interfere with the love, contact, and image of the target parent” (p. 9). In their 25-year study of 1000 divorced/separated families commissioned by the American Bar Association, they identified 12 brainwashing techniques used by alienating parents (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013, pp. 31-63);
I would argue that depression could also stem from a child speaking out to protect themselves and no one listening. They are allowing kids to undergo torturous hours of therapy where the kid is not the issue it’s the system. Real life example: parent trying to gain full custody claiming they are being alienated calls child piece of shit in front of therapist. Therapist tells child it is their problem because they need to learn to be more understanding and open to relationship. Therapist blames other parent because they say they need to promote the relationship more.
Now parent accused of alienation is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They tell their kid they aren’t a piece of shit but still at same time needs to say well you need to accept being treated this way. But, if you ever treat someone else this way you will be in trouble. Basically, you have to tell your kid to suck it up as you financially bleed and lose everything in court to protect them. But, the real outcome is the child is sucking it up to protect you from being arrested.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it looks very much like an alienator trying to gaslight the child, the therapist and all the professionals involved in a case by making false or misleading claims about the reunification therapy.
To use my own real world example, in my case, my ex, the alienator, consistently tried to undermine our court-ordered therapy with claims like these. Some key phrases here:
“A child speaking out to protect themselves and no one listening.” — the problem is that the child has been triangulated, terrorized, and convinced by the alienating parent that the targeted parent has harmed them and that they need to keep speaking out on their own behalf against that parent. The difficulty is that while the child is being listened to, the true facts are known by the targeted parent and therapist. When the court does not take swift action to restore parenting time, the therapist and targeted parent are left with the supremely difficult task of trying to help the child understand the truth for one hour per week with the targeted parent, while the alienating parent has full access to the child for the rest of the week.
“Tortuous hours of therapy” — this is simply an attack on the idea of the therapy used to reunify parents and children, which is typically gentle but is seen as “tortuous” only due to the continuing efforts of the alienating parent to keep the child believing that they are being harmed by it. It is the tension between the truth and the opposing efforts of the alienating parent that are torturing the child.
“The kid is not the issue, it’s the system.” — agree, but not with this commenter’s intent. Reunification therapy does not focus on the child as the issue, nor would any good parent trying to help their child out of this situation focus on the child being the problem. This statement, however, implies that the therapy in question does exactly that, and deflects from the real issue that it is the alienator that is the primary problem. The system that enables the alienator is the secondary problem. The child is not the problem, but a victim of the alienator, along with the other victim, the targeted parent. Therapy seeks to help both victims, but is often an inadequate solution without enforcement of parenting time by the court.
As for this commenter’s real world example, I cannot say whether it is true or not, but I can say that this is exactly the kind of false claim that my ex would make about our therapy sessions, without having been there, without knowing anything that went on in them, only knowing that progress was being made and they had to fight it at all costs. This scenario is exactly the kind of absurd thing that my ex would claim was happening in our sessions without any evidence, and in contradiction of both my and our therapist’s accounts of our sessions. It is a willful denial and deliberate reframing/twisting of the story in exactly the same manner that the alienator has used to consistently damage the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.
“Parent accused of alienation” — one doesn’t arrive in reunification therapy simply based on an accusation. It happens when the child has been removed from the targeted parent without just cause.
“They tell their kid they aren’t a piece of shit but still at same time needs to say well you need to accept being treated this way.” — this is the worst gaslighting statement of this entire comment. This encapsulates the whole dynamic, right here. The alienating parent, who was not present to know what was said in a session, nonetheless continues to tell the child they are being harmed and casts themself as the protector of the child. They tell the child that because of the system, they have to accept being mistreated, and that this is unjust but they can’t do anything about it. This keeps the cold aligned with the alienating parent (who is the abuser), while serving the dual purpose of attempting to make the alienator look like an aggrieved protector to other outside observers. Don't fall for it.
“ Basically, you have to tell your kid to suck it up…” — this language gives up the whole game of the alienator. See above. This is the exact same language used by my ex in our case and should be a huge red flag to anyone investigating or observing these cases.
The parent who has lost the child is typically trying to use whatever means they have at their disposal to protect and save their child from this ongoing psychological abuse by the alienator. Therapy is too often an inadequate solution, but is the only means available. A good parent will try to use the therapy to reach their child even when the court is asleep and has failed to take decisive action to restore parenting time.
This commenter’s final statement — “ the real outcome is the child is sucking it up to protect you from being arrested.” — can be more accurately, and revealingly, rephrased this way: the child is being used by the alienator as a shield, tortured into believing lies and standing up for their abuser, when the alienator, who knows their crimes, really should be arrested for them.
This is scary because it puts the child and parent being accused in a no win situation. The court will not listen to the child because they think they are being coerced. The court will listen to the accuser and opt for equal parenting time or the accused parent will lose custody if the child doesn’t cooperate. The real concern here is when the accused parent loses custody the accuser now has the child to themself. But, in an abusive situation that wasn’t their goal in the first place. The goal was control. It leaves the child in a situation where they may be potentially harmed. I think what obviously is lacking in many court cases is common sense and looking at all aspects. Did the teachers file reports with CPS? Did the child go to a school counselor? Is the child old enough to express their thoughts? Is there a history of domestic abuse where it may not be alienation but rather a child fearing the abuser? Were both parents active participants in raising them or did something trigger this alienation accusation? Is there also financial abuse by the accuser? What reunification techniques were used? Were medically trained drs used for reunification or therapy or was it a camp or unqualified therapist locking a child in a room for three hours. Yes, I agree that this situation can lead to depression and relationship issues for children that have gone thru this. Thats exactly why the courts have to be extra careful to protect these children. Remember, when this is all said and done the parent has to put these kids together, try to fix it so they can heal and be productive members of society.
The key here is; “ The real concern here is when the accused parent loses custody the accuser now has the child to themself.” This gives that parent time to install false memories, shared persecutory delusions, thus turning the child against the Target Parent.
I get it.. it's complicated. Care MUST be taken. However, one of the parents is a bad actor and the situation CANNOT be ignored. There are established models for determining the truth (see Childress).
What's happened for far too long are the courts being uncertain and allowing PA to go unchecked for fear of making a mistake. All they have to do is is involve trusted professionals.. and take all accusations seriously until the matter is determined.. then provide reasonable oversight.
Any targeted parent who doesn't have $100k+ for legal fees, to fight for their children ends up without their children.
Children rarely reject parents even in in severe abuse. Often children side with their abuser. It's counter-intuitive because you have to listen carefully to the children and evaluate whether their reasons make any sense.. You have to ask if their reaction and symptoms match their claims. e.g. Would any reasonable child be upset to this degree because of the alleged actions by their parent.. Often the answer is no. Often, even in very abusive situations, children are taught that their abuser is doing what's best for them and are sympathetic and agree. This is well established.
From experience, therapists, psychologists, Child Protective Services, the police, and the courts do not want to do their job and investigate claims.. even in my case where there are significant concerns of abuse by the alienating parent which are not just PA related. They often think, it's what the kids want so it must be best. HOWEVER, this completely ignores the significant danger to children who do not have the cognitive development to understand the situation. We don't ask children, in other abusive situations, whether they want to stay in it; we shouldn't for this.
Of course parties who will reap monetary benefits from parental alienation being "a silent form of child abuse" will firmly stand in claiming that it is real. It has been taught and pushed to attorneys and evaluators at the AFCC conferences for years. It disproportionality affects protective mothers who are accused of brainwashing their children, which is a nothing less than a modern-day witch hunt where women have special powers to control the minds of others. Women have had enough.
This is ad hominem attack, which is a science denial technique. Professionals are entitled to compensation for their work. Just because a professional is compensated doesn't automatically disqualify their intent or accuracy. According to your argument, nobody is qualified to be an expert witness for anything if they get paid. For the record, many PA critics also get paid for expert testimony, attorney services etc.
You completely ignored the large body of work and experiences by leaders in the field and parents. Thanks for pointing out the problem: misandry.
Interesting that you think that dis-proportionally affecting mothers is anything except an indictment. Moms, especially in my case, can be extremely premeditated and evil, triangulate police, therapists, psychiatrists, etc.. can do it to multiple men, can play up their own fake health concerns, etc... cry at every turn that they're protecting the child.. while doing the exact opposite. and because she's gendered a woman she is believed despite her claims being unsubstantiated and unfounded, with a long history of lying to police, therapists, doctors, family, everyone ...and her own biological family..with clear FDIA in the medical record.. but not bad enough..yet to apparently take action.
Let's please stop pretending that some personality disorders affect the genders equally and that women must always be believed. Men need heard too.
The problem with PA is that it happens disproportionately to men. However, because of sexism, the system ignores the underlying causes of PA.. preferring to believe women... Then because this is a mental health issue and not a gendered one, women end up just as devastated and ignored as men when it happens to them. BUT most importantly, children are devastated
Absolutely 100% true. I have been dealing with a Narcissist who took me out of my children's lives for almost 5 years - 3 years almost completely. It caused me 7 grand mal seizures from the stress and torment of watching my children being harmed before my eyes with nothing I could do. My daughter just stood up to her abusive mother to tell her what she's learned and what she thinks of it. Word is getting out. Keep up the good work Richard.
And where do you account for the vicious “exes” who rant, rave, accuse, badmouth, & lie about the other parent, trying to make the child hate that parent. That is very common & seems to be a method to employ when custody issues are at stake. The children are being used as weapons.
Agreed. They brainwash kids using false memories (share persecutory delusions) against the Target Parent. Then it will proceed to affect the next six generations to come.
"It’s as real as the color green, even if some people can’t see it. Just because some can’t recognize or perceive it, doesn’t make it any less real. I’m growing tired of constantly defending myself against the social gaslighting that tries to deny the reality of this disease."
Embedded in the comments on your article is an award-winning story in the making. The journalist who will have the courage and integrity to expose one of the greatest scandals and public policy deceptions in recent history will gain worldwide fame.
Your article discussed a recent article by Dr. Harman and Dr. Kruk entitled Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as A Form of Family Violence and Child Abuse. Harman’s article debunks many common misconceptions about parental alienation. Instead of engaging in a scholarly discussion about the merits of Harman’s arguments, some comments on your blog have engaged in the very misconceptions that Harman dispelled.
Most notably, Michael Volpe has tried to intimidate people through ad hominem attacks and various other science denial tactics. One such tactic is demanding higher levels of evidence than are usually required. Volpe asked me what prestigious journals publish articles about parental alienation. I presented your readers with a sample list of such journals. This was not sufficient for Volpe. Instead, he engaged in further ad hominem attacks, accusations of nefarious intent and conspiracy theories.
Likewise, I presented to your readers an article from the editor of the DSM-5 about parental alienation’s inclusion in the DSM-5 as well as the link to the ICD 11 website which validates parental alienation. I also presented a list of professional organizations that validate the concept of parental alienation. Volpe’s final word on this was “they did no such thing. It was rejected. It's rejected every time it comes up. Thus is coping by people who can't accept that it's BS”.
Volpe made no attempt to understand the information that was presented and to respond in a scientific manner to the points he disagreed with. Like most diehard parental alienation critics, they do not respond to any logical arguments that refutes their position. Rather, they engage in further science denial tactics.
So here is the breaking story. The media predominately continues to promote the narrative of the parental alienation critics. Like Volpe, they repeat discredited memes and misinformation to the public and policymakers. I have personally coauthored three different critiques concerning the most seminal works of the critics of parental alienation (see https://bit.ly/3NnYMgp, https://bit.ly/3GHbgMG, https://bit.ly/3t5VuYx). The authors of these works have yet to respond to the voluminous critiques that we presented. Instead, they have continued with their science denial campaign.
The investigative journalist that will expose their false narrative and reveal the widespread misinformation and public policy deceit that they promote will uncover a major scandal. This scandal impacts upon federal and state laws; the misuse of government funding for fraudulent research; the allocation of millions of federal dollars to the critics of parental alienation to conduct training and other programs; subjecting children to emotional abuse; and interfering with due process and judicial discretion.
Who is going to be the prize-winning journalist that will once and for all expose this scandal? Maybe it will be one of the readers of this post!
Have you read Dr Craig Childress? Read his book "Foundations". It's ground breaking and leaves no doubt. Anything I add will just be a reflection of that.
It gives us something to talk about. And it allows the argument to properly focus. I asked for the best argument for PA. I guess were' going with this one. Now I have something to present to those with differing opinions. They can point to what paragraph, line, and footnote(s) they disagree with.
Michael, you are using a science denial technique to deflect the issue. PA research appears in some of the most prestigious double-blind peer reviewed journals. The peer review is not done only y PA proponents, but by the scientific community in general. I encourage people to actually read the research, the statistical analyses and draw your own conclusions about the quality of the work. The PA critics have produced negligent research; they usually opine opinion. Even that is published primarily in two weak journals with low impact factors. I have written critiques about many of their works and showed how the PA critics misquote, present misinformation and more. The critics do not answer these claims but proclaim more science denial techniques and when all else fails, they have claimed a conspiracy theory that professional journals are in cahoots with PA experts. Ridiculous.
Prestigious. What prestigious places does this research find itself in? Every psychological body rejects it. Every psychologist not making money on it rejects. It's pure quackery.
The scientific method is based upon well designed studies that have good peer review, are replicable, detailed statistical analysis etc. There is no room for ad hominem attacks. Let’s stick to the facts. The impact factor of an average professional journal is 1. Research studies about parental alienation have been published in hundreds of articles in ten languages (see https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/dev0001404 ). Here is a brief list of some of the journals that have published these articles and their impact factors:
Journal of Affective Disorders: 6.6
Developmental Psychology (an APA publication): 3.1
Child and Youth Services Review: 2.4
Psychology, Public Policy and Law (an APA publication): 2.3
Family Transitions: 2:2
Journal of Family Violence: 2.18
Forensic Sciences: 1.5
Journal of Family Therapy: 1.86
Yes, these are prestigious journals, including APA journals. Contrast this to the Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development, which is one of the predominant publishers of critiques of parental alienation. It has an impact factor of .7 and a weak peer review policy. Most of its articles about parental alienation are opinion pieces and not actual research.
You mention the often-repeated meme that professional organizations do not recognize parental alienation. The article that Richard Luthmann reviewed actually disproves your claim:
“The reality of PA is widely accepted by child and family organizations such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), International Council on Shared Parenting, and Parental Alienation Study Group. According to the AFCC and similar bodies, a scientific consensus has been reached regarding the existence, incidence and effects of PA. The concept of PA has been accepted by many other professional organizations, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1997), the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry (SINPIA, 2007), the Spanish Association for Multidisciplinary Research on Parental Interference (ASEMIP, 2010), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC, 2006, 2019; AFCC & NCJFCJ 2022), the American Academy of Pediatrics (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2016), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (AFCC & NCJFCJ, 2022), and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (2015).
In 2022, the American Psychological Association (APA) published Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings. In its guidelines, the APA states, “the foci of a child custody evaluation may encompass, among other factors, threats to the child’s safety and well-being, such as physical and emotional abuse, neglect, coercion, and the presence of parental alienating behaviors, as well as exposure to parental conflict, violence, abuse, and antagonistic inter¬actions between extended family members” (emphasis added, APA, 2022, p. 5). Thus, it is disingenuous and inaccurate to say that PA is not supported by the APA or rejected by professional organizations”.
Furthermore, while the DSM-5 and the ICD 11 do not list parental alienation as a separated diagnosis, they both indicate that parental alienation is included under other diagnoses in the DSM-5 and ICD 11. The authors of the DSM-5 have made this abundantly clear and this is likewise mentioned on the ICD 11 website.
Parental alienation is not a red unicorn; it is a serious form of psychological abuse. The science around it is constantly developing and there sometimes are disagreements among professionals about its nuances (as in any other developing sciences). Yes, false alienation claims are sometimes made just like false DV claims are sometimes lodged. This is not a reason to discredit the science and the professionals who research it. Rather, safeguards need to be developed to prevent all forms of false claims. It is time for the critiques of parental alienation to cease with the science denial campaign and collaborate in making sure that children are safe from all forms of abuse.
The APA rejects each time some quack tries to include it in the DSM. WHO also rejects it each time. You're full of crap. Outside of people who make money from it no one thinks it's real. The peers in peer review are other quacks who profit from it.
It is concerning that you have not addressed any of the issues I raised. The actual editors of the DSM 5 explained why PA was not included in the DSM. It was not rejected; rather, they explained that a separate diagnosis was not needed since PA is covered by three other codes. You can read the words of the DSM editors at DOI:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.018 .
In a similar manner, the ICD (see https://bit.ly/4dysw4t ) removed the term PA because "In situations in which an individual labelled with this term presents for health care, other ICD-11 content is sufficient to guide coding. Users may classify cases to ‘caregiver-child relationship problem’. Therefore, the index term ‘parental alienation’ has been removed, as has the parallel index term ‘parental estrangement’".
Also, I directed you to two APA journals that publish research about PA and the actual APA 2022 Custody Evaluator Guidelines mention PA at least 20 times. Therefore, it is misinformation to state that the APA rejects PA.
It is unfortunate that you are not directing ad hominem attacks against me. My challenge to you (as it is to other PA critics) is to address the research and facts and stop hiding behind the name calling. Unless PA critics will engage in a genuine scholarly debate and answer the questions about their lack of research, poor research, and misinformation campaign, their science denial tactics give themselves away.
Respectfully disagree. I've communicated with leaders in the psychological community.. e.g. doctors associated and leaders in the APA, who agree that PA is child abuse.
The US department of Justice has it on their website as abuse. (not named thusly)
Great job Richard on a good article and good responses to the comments. Keep it up.
What is missing from this discussion is that there are forensic models for differentiating between PA and estrangement. All PA experts agree that false PA claims and false DV claims can be made. We do not disallow all claims because of the possibility of fraud. Rather, the proper course of action is proper diagnosis of all claims and issue and therefore to making educated decisions. When this is done, the concerns of many of the comments on this article are taken care adequately.
100%
e.g. Childress does a great job in providing therapists and psychologists evaluating models for determining PA. all readily available for anyone to read on his website
Alienating Behavior and Impact
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-games/202112/the-devastating-effects-of-parental-alienation
Adult children reported a multitude of alienating behaviors that damaged their relationship with the Target Parent and their own well-being. This theme broke down into seven sub-themes:
Abuse and control. Participants were emotionally and physically abused by the Alienating Parent. For example, they were made to feel fear or guilt when they didn’t comply with the Alienating Parent’s view of the Target Parent.
Denigration of the targeted parent—to the point where it damaged the child’s bond with the Target Parent.
Adultification—in which their parent inappropriately disclosed information and sought support during custody disputes.
Disrupting alienated adult child and targeted parent relationship. The bond between children and the Target Parent was damaged. Some moved to different states or overseas, making a relationship or even communication with the Target Parent difficult. Others were told that the Target Parent didn’t love them.
Perceptions of the Alienating Parent’s characteristics—including self-absorption, criticalness, and lacking in empathy and insight into how their behavior impacts others—even when confronted by their child.
Neglect. Basic needs and safety were disregarded.
Alienated adult child experience suppressed. Participants pushed down their thoughts, emotions, and memories, particularly regarding the Target Parent.
Psychological Perspective
Judges View on Parental Alienation: Key Insights and Legal Perspectives
https://www.legalscoops.com/judges-view-on-parental-alienation/
Parental alienation is a sensitive and complex issue that judges encounter in family court cases, particularly those involving high-conflict separations or divorces. It involves a child’s strong alliance with one parent, referred to as the preferred parent or alienating parent, and the rejection of the other parent, known as the target parent, without legitimate justification. Judges are responsible for making decisions prioritizing the child’s best interests, so understanding their views and approach to parental alienation is crucial.
Judges view parental alienation as a form of child abuse and treat it accordingly. Thus, they strive to make decisions that protect the child from harm and maintain healthy relationships with both parents. Often, the court considers the evidence presented and the child’s thoughts, feelings, and wishes when determining an appropriate course of action. Professionals such as child psychologists or counselors may also weigh in on the situation, providing further insight and helping the judge reach a decision that serves the child’s best interests.
Judges must demonstrate empathy, understanding, and objectivity, as parental alienation cases can be challenging and emotionally taxing for all parties involved. The ultimate goal is to preserve and foster healthy familial bonds while addressing and mitigating the harmful effects of parental alienation on the child and the targeted parent.
Legal Perspective
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9026878/
Parental alienation has been defined by some as a serious mental condition in children exposed to parental alienating behaviours [1,2]. Parental alienation can be identified through the presence of five factors: (1) the child refuses, opposes, or avoids a relationship with a parent; (2) the child had a positive relationship with that parent before they rejected them; (3) there is no evidence of abuse or neglect perpetrated by the rejected parent; (4) the other parent has used multiple parental alienating behaviours; (5) the child exhibits behavioural manifestations of parental alienation [3]. Consideration of parental alienation as a mental condition diagnosed in children has attracted criticism in the literature [4]. Others take a broader view of parental alienation with a focus on the nature and outcome of parental alienating behaviours [5]. Parental alienating behaviours are considered a complex cluster of strategies used by alienating parents to damage and sever the relationship between the child and the child’s other parent (targeted parent). It has been suggested that parental alienating behaviours are best understood in the context of family violence, whereby parental alienation is the outcome of an abusive process perpetrated by the alienating parent [5]. Parental alienating behaviours can include the alienating parent discrediting the targeted parent by sabotaging, undermining, and manipulating their relationship with the child [6]. It is thought that at least 19% of the population in the United States has been exposed to parental alienating behaviours [7]. This contrasts with parental estrangement, where the parent–child relationship has been negatively affected, usually with a sound rationale for the child’s rejection of the parent [5,8].
Public Health Perspective
https://psychlaw.net/brainwashing-techniques-used-by-alienating-parents/
Brainwashing Techniques used by Alienating Parents
“Programming” and “Brainwashing” are two terms used by Dr. Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin [1] to describe the methods and techniques used by alienating parents to manipulate their children into rejecting and/or hating the target parent. According to Clawar & Rivlin (2013), “programming and brainwashing is a process (intentional and unintentional) whereby a parent … attempts to limit, damage, and interfere with the love, contact, and image of the target parent” (p. 9). In their 25-year study of 1000 divorced/separated families commissioned by the American Bar Association, they identified 12 brainwashing techniques used by alienating parents (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013, pp. 31-63);
Legal Perspective
I would argue that depression could also stem from a child speaking out to protect themselves and no one listening. They are allowing kids to undergo torturous hours of therapy where the kid is not the issue it’s the system. Real life example: parent trying to gain full custody claiming they are being alienated calls child piece of shit in front of therapist. Therapist tells child it is their problem because they need to learn to be more understanding and open to relationship. Therapist blames other parent because they say they need to promote the relationship more.
Now parent accused of alienation is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They tell their kid they aren’t a piece of shit but still at same time needs to say well you need to accept being treated this way. But, if you ever treat someone else this way you will be in trouble. Basically, you have to tell your kid to suck it up as you financially bleed and lose everything in court to protect them. But, the real outcome is the child is sucking it up to protect you from being arrested.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it looks very much like an alienator trying to gaslight the child, the therapist and all the professionals involved in a case by making false or misleading claims about the reunification therapy.
To use my own real world example, in my case, my ex, the alienator, consistently tried to undermine our court-ordered therapy with claims like these. Some key phrases here:
“A child speaking out to protect themselves and no one listening.” — the problem is that the child has been triangulated, terrorized, and convinced by the alienating parent that the targeted parent has harmed them and that they need to keep speaking out on their own behalf against that parent. The difficulty is that while the child is being listened to, the true facts are known by the targeted parent and therapist. When the court does not take swift action to restore parenting time, the therapist and targeted parent are left with the supremely difficult task of trying to help the child understand the truth for one hour per week with the targeted parent, while the alienating parent has full access to the child for the rest of the week.
“Tortuous hours of therapy” — this is simply an attack on the idea of the therapy used to reunify parents and children, which is typically gentle but is seen as “tortuous” only due to the continuing efforts of the alienating parent to keep the child believing that they are being harmed by it. It is the tension between the truth and the opposing efforts of the alienating parent that are torturing the child.
“The kid is not the issue, it’s the system.” — agree, but not with this commenter’s intent. Reunification therapy does not focus on the child as the issue, nor would any good parent trying to help their child out of this situation focus on the child being the problem. This statement, however, implies that the therapy in question does exactly that, and deflects from the real issue that it is the alienator that is the primary problem. The system that enables the alienator is the secondary problem. The child is not the problem, but a victim of the alienator, along with the other victim, the targeted parent. Therapy seeks to help both victims, but is often an inadequate solution without enforcement of parenting time by the court.
As for this commenter’s real world example, I cannot say whether it is true or not, but I can say that this is exactly the kind of false claim that my ex would make about our therapy sessions, without having been there, without knowing anything that went on in them, only knowing that progress was being made and they had to fight it at all costs. This scenario is exactly the kind of absurd thing that my ex would claim was happening in our sessions without any evidence, and in contradiction of both my and our therapist’s accounts of our sessions. It is a willful denial and deliberate reframing/twisting of the story in exactly the same manner that the alienator has used to consistently damage the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.
“Parent accused of alienation” — one doesn’t arrive in reunification therapy simply based on an accusation. It happens when the child has been removed from the targeted parent without just cause.
“They tell their kid they aren’t a piece of shit but still at same time needs to say well you need to accept being treated this way.” — this is the worst gaslighting statement of this entire comment. This encapsulates the whole dynamic, right here. The alienating parent, who was not present to know what was said in a session, nonetheless continues to tell the child they are being harmed and casts themself as the protector of the child. They tell the child that because of the system, they have to accept being mistreated, and that this is unjust but they can’t do anything about it. This keeps the cold aligned with the alienating parent (who is the abuser), while serving the dual purpose of attempting to make the alienator look like an aggrieved protector to other outside observers. Don't fall for it.
“ Basically, you have to tell your kid to suck it up…” — this language gives up the whole game of the alienator. See above. This is the exact same language used by my ex in our case and should be a huge red flag to anyone investigating or observing these cases.
The parent who has lost the child is typically trying to use whatever means they have at their disposal to protect and save their child from this ongoing psychological abuse by the alienator. Therapy is too often an inadequate solution, but is the only means available. A good parent will try to use the therapy to reach their child even when the court is asleep and has failed to take decisive action to restore parenting time.
This commenter’s final statement — “ the real outcome is the child is sucking it up to protect you from being arrested.” — can be more accurately, and revealingly, rephrased this way: the child is being used by the alienator as a shield, tortured into believing lies and standing up for their abuser, when the alienator, who knows their crimes, really should be arrested for them.
This is scary because it puts the child and parent being accused in a no win situation. The court will not listen to the child because they think they are being coerced. The court will listen to the accuser and opt for equal parenting time or the accused parent will lose custody if the child doesn’t cooperate. The real concern here is when the accused parent loses custody the accuser now has the child to themself. But, in an abusive situation that wasn’t their goal in the first place. The goal was control. It leaves the child in a situation where they may be potentially harmed. I think what obviously is lacking in many court cases is common sense and looking at all aspects. Did the teachers file reports with CPS? Did the child go to a school counselor? Is the child old enough to express their thoughts? Is there a history of domestic abuse where it may not be alienation but rather a child fearing the abuser? Were both parents active participants in raising them or did something trigger this alienation accusation? Is there also financial abuse by the accuser? What reunification techniques were used? Were medically trained drs used for reunification or therapy or was it a camp or unqualified therapist locking a child in a room for three hours. Yes, I agree that this situation can lead to depression and relationship issues for children that have gone thru this. Thats exactly why the courts have to be extra careful to protect these children. Remember, when this is all said and done the parent has to put these kids together, try to fix it so they can heal and be productive members of society.
The key here is; “ The real concern here is when the accused parent loses custody the accuser now has the child to themself.” This gives that parent time to install false memories, shared persecutory delusions, thus turning the child against the Target Parent.
Interesting perspective.
I get it.. it's complicated. Care MUST be taken. However, one of the parents is a bad actor and the situation CANNOT be ignored. There are established models for determining the truth (see Childress).
What's happened for far too long are the courts being uncertain and allowing PA to go unchecked for fear of making a mistake. All they have to do is is involve trusted professionals.. and take all accusations seriously until the matter is determined.. then provide reasonable oversight.
Any targeted parent who doesn't have $100k+ for legal fees, to fight for their children ends up without their children.
Children rarely reject parents even in in severe abuse. Often children side with their abuser. It's counter-intuitive because you have to listen carefully to the children and evaluate whether their reasons make any sense.. You have to ask if their reaction and symptoms match their claims. e.g. Would any reasonable child be upset to this degree because of the alleged actions by their parent.. Often the answer is no. Often, even in very abusive situations, children are taught that their abuser is doing what's best for them and are sympathetic and agree. This is well established.
From experience, therapists, psychologists, Child Protective Services, the police, and the courts do not want to do their job and investigate claims.. even in my case where there are significant concerns of abuse by the alienating parent which are not just PA related. They often think, it's what the kids want so it must be best. HOWEVER, this completely ignores the significant danger to children who do not have the cognitive development to understand the situation. We don't ask children, in other abusive situations, whether they want to stay in it; we shouldn't for this.
Of course parties who will reap monetary benefits from parental alienation being "a silent form of child abuse" will firmly stand in claiming that it is real. It has been taught and pushed to attorneys and evaluators at the AFCC conferences for years. It disproportionality affects protective mothers who are accused of brainwashing their children, which is a nothing less than a modern-day witch hunt where women have special powers to control the minds of others. Women have had enough.
This is ad hominem attack, which is a science denial technique. Professionals are entitled to compensation for their work. Just because a professional is compensated doesn't automatically disqualify their intent or accuracy. According to your argument, nobody is qualified to be an expert witness for anything if they get paid. For the record, many PA critics also get paid for expert testimony, attorney services etc.
You completely ignored the large body of work and experiences by leaders in the field and parents. Thanks for pointing out the problem: misandry.
Interesting that you think that dis-proportionally affecting mothers is anything except an indictment. Moms, especially in my case, can be extremely premeditated and evil, triangulate police, therapists, psychiatrists, etc.. can do it to multiple men, can play up their own fake health concerns, etc... cry at every turn that they're protecting the child.. while doing the exact opposite. and because she's gendered a woman she is believed despite her claims being unsubstantiated and unfounded, with a long history of lying to police, therapists, doctors, family, everyone ...and her own biological family..with clear FDIA in the medical record.. but not bad enough..yet to apparently take action.
Let's please stop pretending that some personality disorders affect the genders equally and that women must always be believed. Men need heard too.
The problem with PA is that it happens disproportionately to men. However, because of sexism, the system ignores the underlying causes of PA.. preferring to believe women... Then because this is a mental health issue and not a gendered one, women end up just as devastated and ignored as men when it happens to them. BUT most importantly, children are devastated
Absolutely 100% true. I have been dealing with a Narcissist who took me out of my children's lives for almost 5 years - 3 years almost completely. It caused me 7 grand mal seizures from the stress and torment of watching my children being harmed before my eyes with nothing I could do. My daughter just stood up to her abusive mother to tell her what she's learned and what she thinks of it. Word is getting out. Keep up the good work Richard.
And where do you account for the vicious “exes” who rant, rave, accuse, badmouth, & lie about the other parent, trying to make the child hate that parent. That is very common & seems to be a method to employ when custody issues are at stake. The children are being used as weapons.
Agreed. They brainwash kids using false memories (share persecutory delusions) against the Target Parent. Then it will proceed to affect the next six generations to come.
"It’s as real as the color green, even if some people can’t see it. Just because some can’t recognize or perceive it, doesn’t make it any less real. I’m growing tired of constantly defending myself against the social gaslighting that tries to deny the reality of this disease."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-B3jHqQd6M
Parental Alienation: An Introduction - American Bar Association PDF Chapter 1
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000175
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/fcre.12472
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-44575-1_9
https://academic.oup.com/book/1161/chapter-abstract/138252650?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Richard,
Embedded in the comments on your article is an award-winning story in the making. The journalist who will have the courage and integrity to expose one of the greatest scandals and public policy deceptions in recent history will gain worldwide fame.
Your article discussed a recent article by Dr. Harman and Dr. Kruk entitled Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as A Form of Family Violence and Child Abuse. Harman’s article debunks many common misconceptions about parental alienation. Instead of engaging in a scholarly discussion about the merits of Harman’s arguments, some comments on your blog have engaged in the very misconceptions that Harman dispelled.
Most notably, Michael Volpe has tried to intimidate people through ad hominem attacks and various other science denial tactics. One such tactic is demanding higher levels of evidence than are usually required. Volpe asked me what prestigious journals publish articles about parental alienation. I presented your readers with a sample list of such journals. This was not sufficient for Volpe. Instead, he engaged in further ad hominem attacks, accusations of nefarious intent and conspiracy theories.
Likewise, I presented to your readers an article from the editor of the DSM-5 about parental alienation’s inclusion in the DSM-5 as well as the link to the ICD 11 website which validates parental alienation. I also presented a list of professional organizations that validate the concept of parental alienation. Volpe’s final word on this was “they did no such thing. It was rejected. It's rejected every time it comes up. Thus is coping by people who can't accept that it's BS”.
Volpe made no attempt to understand the information that was presented and to respond in a scientific manner to the points he disagreed with. Like most diehard parental alienation critics, they do not respond to any logical arguments that refutes their position. Rather, they engage in further science denial tactics.
So here is the breaking story. The media predominately continues to promote the narrative of the parental alienation critics. Like Volpe, they repeat discredited memes and misinformation to the public and policymakers. I have personally coauthored three different critiques concerning the most seminal works of the critics of parental alienation (see https://bit.ly/3NnYMgp, https://bit.ly/3GHbgMG, https://bit.ly/3t5VuYx). The authors of these works have yet to respond to the voluminous critiques that we presented. Instead, they have continued with their science denial campaign.
The investigative journalist that will expose their false narrative and reveal the widespread misinformation and public policy deceit that they promote will uncover a major scandal. This scandal impacts upon federal and state laws; the misuse of government funding for fraudulent research; the allocation of millions of federal dollars to the critics of parental alienation to conduct training and other programs; subjecting children to emotional abuse; and interfering with due process and judicial discretion.
Who is going to be the prize-winning journalist that will once and for all expose this scandal? Maybe it will be one of the readers of this post!
Have you read Dr Craig Childress? Read his book "Foundations". It's ground breaking and leaves no doubt. Anything I add will just be a reflection of that.
Read his blog: https://drcraigchildressblog.com/2015/11/03/diagnosis-of-parental-alienation/
There is no excuse for anyone to deny PA. PA is attachment based child abuse and intimate partner violence.
The attachment system has been well established in the foundations of psychology for 50+ years. It's absolutely foundational.
Peer reviewed by their peers. That's not really peer reviewed. Others who propagate PA are the ones reviewing it. This is a bogus concept.
Not until you experience PA will you completely understand it.
It gives us something to talk about. And it allows the argument to properly focus. I asked for the best argument for PA. I guess were' going with this one. Now I have something to present to those with differing opinions. They can point to what paragraph, line, and footnote(s) they disagree with.
Michael, you are using a science denial technique to deflect the issue. PA research appears in some of the most prestigious double-blind peer reviewed journals. The peer review is not done only y PA proponents, but by the scientific community in general. I encourage people to actually read the research, the statistical analyses and draw your own conclusions about the quality of the work. The PA critics have produced negligent research; they usually opine opinion. Even that is published primarily in two weak journals with low impact factors. I have written critiques about many of their works and showed how the PA critics misquote, present misinformation and more. The critics do not answer these claims but proclaim more science denial techniques and when all else fails, they have claimed a conspiracy theory that professional journals are in cahoots with PA experts. Ridiculous.
Prestigious. What prestigious places does this research find itself in? Every psychological body rejects it. Every psychologist not making money on it rejects. It's pure quackery.
Michael,
The scientific method is based upon well designed studies that have good peer review, are replicable, detailed statistical analysis etc. There is no room for ad hominem attacks. Let’s stick to the facts. The impact factor of an average professional journal is 1. Research studies about parental alienation have been published in hundreds of articles in ten languages (see https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/dev0001404 ). Here is a brief list of some of the journals that have published these articles and their impact factors:
Journal of Affective Disorders: 6.6
Developmental Psychology (an APA publication): 3.1
Child and Youth Services Review: 2.4
Psychology, Public Policy and Law (an APA publication): 2.3
Family Transitions: 2:2
Journal of Family Violence: 2.18
Forensic Sciences: 1.5
Journal of Family Therapy: 1.86
Yes, these are prestigious journals, including APA journals. Contrast this to the Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development, which is one of the predominant publishers of critiques of parental alienation. It has an impact factor of .7 and a weak peer review policy. Most of its articles about parental alienation are opinion pieces and not actual research.
You mention the often-repeated meme that professional organizations do not recognize parental alienation. The article that Richard Luthmann reviewed actually disproves your claim:
“The reality of PA is widely accepted by child and family organizations such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), International Council on Shared Parenting, and Parental Alienation Study Group. According to the AFCC and similar bodies, a scientific consensus has been reached regarding the existence, incidence and effects of PA. The concept of PA has been accepted by many other professional organizations, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1997), the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry (SINPIA, 2007), the Spanish Association for Multidisciplinary Research on Parental Interference (ASEMIP, 2010), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC, 2006, 2019; AFCC & NCJFCJ 2022), the American Academy of Pediatrics (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2016), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (AFCC & NCJFCJ, 2022), and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (2015).
In 2022, the American Psychological Association (APA) published Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings. In its guidelines, the APA states, “the foci of a child custody evaluation may encompass, among other factors, threats to the child’s safety and well-being, such as physical and emotional abuse, neglect, coercion, and the presence of parental alienating behaviors, as well as exposure to parental conflict, violence, abuse, and antagonistic inter¬actions between extended family members” (emphasis added, APA, 2022, p. 5). Thus, it is disingenuous and inaccurate to say that PA is not supported by the APA or rejected by professional organizations”.
Furthermore, while the DSM-5 and the ICD 11 do not list parental alienation as a separated diagnosis, they both indicate that parental alienation is included under other diagnoses in the DSM-5 and ICD 11. The authors of the DSM-5 have made this abundantly clear and this is likewise mentioned on the ICD 11 website.
Parental alienation is not a red unicorn; it is a serious form of psychological abuse. The science around it is constantly developing and there sometimes are disagreements among professionals about its nuances (as in any other developing sciences). Yes, false alienation claims are sometimes made just like false DV claims are sometimes lodged. This is not a reason to discredit the science and the professionals who research it. Rather, safeguards need to be developed to prevent all forms of false claims. It is time for the critiques of parental alienation to cease with the science denial campaign and collaborate in making sure that children are safe from all forms of abuse.
The APA rejects each time some quack tries to include it in the DSM. WHO also rejects it each time. You're full of crap. Outside of people who make money from it no one thinks it's real. The peers in peer review are other quacks who profit from it.
Michael,
It is concerning that you have not addressed any of the issues I raised. The actual editors of the DSM 5 explained why PA was not included in the DSM. It was not rejected; rather, they explained that a separate diagnosis was not needed since PA is covered by three other codes. You can read the words of the DSM editors at DOI:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.018 .
In a similar manner, the ICD (see https://bit.ly/4dysw4t ) removed the term PA because "In situations in which an individual labelled with this term presents for health care, other ICD-11 content is sufficient to guide coding. Users may classify cases to ‘caregiver-child relationship problem’. Therefore, the index term ‘parental alienation’ has been removed, as has the parallel index term ‘parental estrangement’".
Also, I directed you to two APA journals that publish research about PA and the actual APA 2022 Custody Evaluator Guidelines mention PA at least 20 times. Therefore, it is misinformation to state that the APA rejects PA.
It is unfortunate that you are not directing ad hominem attacks against me. My challenge to you (as it is to other PA critics) is to address the research and facts and stop hiding behind the name calling. Unless PA critics will engage in a genuine scholarly debate and answer the questions about their lack of research, poor research, and misinformation campaign, their science denial tactics give themselves away.
They did no such thing. It was rejected. It's rejected every time it comes up. Thus is coping by people who can't accept that it's BS.
Respectfully disagree. I've communicated with leaders in the psychological community.. e.g. doctors associated and leaders in the APA, who agree that PA is child abuse.
The US department of Justice has it on their website as abuse. (not named thusly)
You haven't, because no one outside tge cadre of PA propagaters says it's real. You're full of crap. You believe in red unicorns.
This is criminal impersonation, I believe by BEERMANN LLP and others:
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/law-firm-from-hell-beermann-llp-accused