Parental Alienation Disorder

Basia Kowalik DDS suffered from Parental Alienation 12/28 by SyndicatedNews | Blog Talk Radio.

I am a daughter of immigrant parents from Poland. Both sides of my family came to the United States after the war as refugees from the Soviet gulags in Siberia. As an immigrant’s child, I strived hard to excel in school and was the first to achieve a doctorate in my family. In 1983, I married another immigrant from Havana Cuba. We shared a commonality not only in family history, but we also were students at the Marquette University of Dentistry were I received a degree in Dentistry. In addition, to having one of the top practices in the country, we published, lectured nationally and internationally in dentistry and business.

My marriage lasted 20 years. I had never truly understood it until it was over. I had been mentally and physically abused… dragged down 12 steps on my back, by my ankles. The word was control. I had married a narcissist and never knew it until he took the minds of my four beautiful children from me during the divorce. It was parental alienation at its worse and I found myself at the mercy of the legal system with no resolve in sight. My attorney, the guardian ad-litem, the court appointed psychologist and the judge all saw the horrific injustice and yet did nothing. Could they do anything? I collapsed from internal agony.

It was at that point that I had to make the most momentous decision of my life. Because I live in a 50-50% state, both parents have custodial rights unless one parent is totally unfit because of criminal record or such. I soon saw that because of his extraordinary behavior and need of total control, he would make it impossible to co-parent and my children’s lives would be havoc. We had joint custody, but I decided to give him physical custody of the children. I felt if I took away the battle, he would stop the war, but he didn’t.

Existence of Parental Alienation Is Now Beyond Debate. Posted with permission by Dr. Richard A. Warshak

Survey results just released show near unanimous agreement among professionals that children can be manipulated by one parent to turn against the other parent.

The survey was taken at the annual International Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Approximately 1000 legal and mental health professionals attended a debate about whether parental alienation should be included in the future edition of the manual of official psychiatric diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association – Fifth Edition, commonly known as the DSM-5.

About 300 people responded to the survey. Nearly every respondent, 98%, responded Yes to the question: “Do you think that some children are manipulated by one parent to irrationally and unjustifiably reject the other parent?”

Despite their contrasting opinions on the issue of whether the DSM-5 should include parental alienation, the debate panel agreed: “The survey results were overwhelming in support of the basic tenet of parental alienation: children can be manipulated by one parent to reject the other parent who does not deserve to be rejected.”

Respondents to the survey were divided about whether the rejected parent shares blame when the favored parent engages in alienating behaviors, what I call divorce poison. Although the panel have not yet explained this finding, it is the result I would expect because the question is ambiguous.

The roots of alienation differ among children. Like nearly every psychological disturbance in childhood, multiple threads make up the tapestry of the child’s personality. (See The Complex Tapestry of Parental Alienation.) When looking at the rejected parent’s contributions to the problem, we see a continuum from those whose behavior is primarily responsible for the problem, to those who contribute significantly and without whose contributions the children might not be alienated, to those whose contributions may not have helped the situation, but did not play any significant role in generating the children’s rejection. (See my Huffpost: Stop Divorce Poison.)

The division among survey responses may reflect nothing more than the respondents thinking about different types of cases. Had they been asked, “Do you believe there are some cases in which a rejected parent’s behavior has not contributed significantly to a child’s rejection?” it is likely that the responses would have approached the consensus found with respect to the issue of the existence of irrational parental alienation.

Also, the notions of cause of a problem and blame for it are complex. Legal dictionaries list many different types of causes. I discuss this in my training seminars and expect to blog about it in the future.

The panel expects to publish a more extensive analysis of the survey results. When they do, you can read about it here.

You Might Be An Alienated Parent If…  (by Monika)

You might be an alienated parent if your four-year old reports, “dad says he gives your new marriage two years—and I agree with him.”

You might be an alienated parent if your seven-year old reports, “ I know the law; just wait till I am of age; I will tell the judge where I want to live.  We are asking for full custody.”

You might be an alienated parent if your child removes household items such as DVDs, electronics, etc. Then, when confronting the child, he / she reports “I feel sorry for dad (or mom) they live alone and cannot make ends meet.” “We pawned the items (mom/dad) get over it.”

You might be an alienated parent if your five-year old reports they no longer have to obey your  rules because “dad ( or mom) says so.” And “we think your rules are dumb.”

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if your ex-partner refuses to co-parent and constantly belittles you to your child.

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if your child complains about the meals you cook. But they don’t stop at complaining.  Instead,  they trash dinner. They call the other parent and report that “there is no decent food in the home.”

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if you kindly ask your ex-spouse to please cease badmouthing. You point out that constant badmouthing is not in the child’s best interest. But, you discover they refuse to stop.

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if your ex-spouse and his (or her) family do not understand the concept of boundaries. They share adult matters with adolescents and  actually seek your adolescents advice. This is evidenced by your adolescent reporting, “yeah dad (or mom) and I have a good time; we talked about the reason his third girlfriend moved out.” And, “geez, mom (or dad) I sure feel so very sorry for her (or him).”   And, as a consequence, your child is in constant distress. You understand this, but your ex-spouse and family do not;  they have the same  mentality as your adolescent. You wonder if insurance companies are the only ones that catch on, as full brain development does not stop at age 16. Insurance rates drop about age 25.

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if you tell your eight year old they cannot watch the exorcist movie, rated R.  Your eight year old informs you, “fine, I will watch the movie with (dad or mom) they will let me”…and the parent actually will.

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if your eight-year old child develops nightmares after watching  movies. You explain to your child that they should not watch such movies while at the other parent’s home. The child insists that “they are more mature than you understand.”  Being the good co-parent you are, you call up your ex-spouse and discuss (or your try to discuss) that it is not  a good idea to let the child view R rated movies. You are told, “ I am with them, what’s the harm; you are too strict.” Besides, “it’s my home when the child is with me.”  And… you are not going to tell me how to raise my (son or daughter).

You might be a distressed and an alienated parent if you report these events but are informed, “ emotional abuse is hard to prove.” The next question, “is your child physically abused?” No you reply. Well, says the helper, “go read a good parenting book.” That day you read an advocacy group’s stance that your issue–the emotional abuse of your child, is not a “real” problem because children would not reject a parent without a good reason. Coercive control only works with grown adults, not susceptible children, right?

You might be distressed, disgruntled, and an alienated parent if you attempt to seek help for your child.  Some say parental alienation is not a “real problem” that it is nothing more than a “normal reaction to a divorce.” Your advice is to “ take the high-road, most children will outgrow alienation.”

You might be a distressed, disgruntled, and an alienated parent if you end back up in  court to enforce orders that are not followed. Your co-parent refuses to adhere to any parenting plan or other mandates—he or she is above the law. They refuse to return the children on time or assist with paying for school lunches.  You are informed, “you just need to get along with your co-parent.” You try to explain that you have bent over backwards in trying to work with your ex-spouse. You may start to think that they have “Heard one case, so they have heard them all.”

You might be a distressed, disgruntled, down-trodden and an alienated parent if the experience of parental alienation has occurred for over 15 years. In fact, it went on for so long, one or more of your children no longer will speak with you. You scratch your head wondering if the brand new car (dad or mom) said they could have if they tore up your property and moved in with them, had anything to do with your child’s change of heart.   

You might be a distressed, disgruntled, down-trodden and an alienated parent if you attempt to explain the situation but others scratch their head, suspiciously question you, and reply “well… some kids are resilient to badmouthing and brainwashing—wonder why your child is not?”

You might be a distressed, disgruntled, down-trodden and an alienated parent if you did the best you could.  No you were not perfect. But,  you were at least an average parent. You know your day-to-day routine would be okay if you were still married.  But once the campaign of denigration started, you had to become almost a perfect parent. You grew a little weary.

Resources:

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization

Dr. Richard Warshak

Posted with permission by Dr. Richard A. Warshak

Parental Alienation Cited in Goldman Decision by Dr. Richard A. Warshak

Parental alienation is emotional abuse. Judge Guadagno is clear about this. Ruling last week in the Sean Goldman case, the judge calls the behavior of Sean’s stepfather and family “contemptible” for filling the child’s head with false information aimed at undermining his love for his dad.

Referring to the “continuous efforts at parental alienation” begun by the boy’s mother and continued by his stepfather and maternal grandparents, and their “attempt to implant false memories and erase Sean’s true memories of his father,” the judge wrote, “It is difficult to conceive of a more dramatic example of emotional abuse of a young child.”

What is self-evident to this judge is incomprehensible to a cadre of naysayers who deny the reality of this form of abuse unless the perpetrator is a violent man. These deniers fear that the term parental alienation is merely a tool for abusive men to deflect blame for their children’s rejection of them. As advocates for victims of domestic violence, they must acknowledge that some men exact revenge against former spouses by poisoning the children’s affections for their mother. When children become alienated from a mother who is a former victim of domestic violence, they call this domestic violence by proxy.

The Goldman case, though, highlights what is wrong with dismissing all cases of parental alienation except those that fit the pattern of violent man against woman. In this case, the perpetrators of the abuse are male and female. Neither has been accused of domestic violence. They have been accused of alienating a boy from his father — parental alienation. And, no court has found that David Goldman is an abuser.

Unless we deny the reality identified by three court-appointed Brazilian psychologists, the Brazilian court, and the New Jersey court, we must conclude that Sean Goldman has been harmed by parental alienation, not by domestic violence by proxy.

Can an abusive parent invoke the concept of parental alienation to blame and discredit a protective parent? Yes. Courts must exercise great care before accepting allegations of alienation as true, or they will mistakenly place children with physically and psychologically abusive parents. But this concern must not keep courts from protecting children against the cruelty of being manipulated to disown a good and loving parent.

Another Year of Parental Alienation? Dr. Gardner’s Observations: The Causal Agent & 25 Years of Blame

Twenty five years ago, Dr. Gardner introduced the term Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Unfortunately, his contributions and his work have been tainted.  One anecdote is that his findings were only self-published.  Some groups dismiss that Dr. Gardner authored 130 peer-reviewed articles, 19 of his articles related specifically to PAS (Rand, 2011).  Critics assert  the phenomenon has been “debunked.” The critics mistakenly divert to references by advocacy groups, not peer-reviewed studies. They also commonly point out that the American Psychological Association (APA) lacks an “official statement.” A lack of an official statement does not indicate parental alienation ceases to exist.  Even so, the detractors overlook the fact that Dr. Gardner’s work is listed, under “pertinent literature” in the APA’s Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluators.  Making matters worse, his critics do not stop at misrepresenting his contributions to the scientific community; they go further, making PAS synonymous with false allegations of abuse (Rand, 2011). The existence of alienation is not equivalent to a denial of child abuse or intimate partner violence (Fidler & Bala, 2010).

Slanderous opinions about Dr. Gardner are not worth reading. Still,  many groups go out of their way, in the name of so-called women’s advocates, to vilify his work. It is disheartening that facts remain discarded. When facts are ignored, alienated parents and children suffer. There are many views offered, each wearing a unique theoretical lens. Different lens will inevitably provide disparaging observations—some become blinded; others see the light.  Blinded perspectives see parental alienation as a normal by-product of divorce.  Or, others propose that a child “outgrows” parental alienation. The reality is some parents have been alienated for five, ten, or more years. And, as many alienated parents know, many relationships become permanently severed.

 Given that parental alienation is not a new phenomenon, parents remain perplexed.  They wonder why complaints are dismissed.  They waste an inordinate amount of time speculating where they went wrong. Others spend an inordinate amount of money trying to force an ex-spouse to follow ignored court orders. There are many reasons for the delays, such as what to call the problem.  Nevertheless, the biggest obstacle, according to the literature, is that many do not accept Gardner’s position. Dr. Gardner (2001) posited that  the programming parent is primarily responsible for the creation of the disorder in the child, and if the programming did not take place, the disorder would not have arisen. Dr. Gardner found, through observation, that the causal agent is the alienating parent. Some find this view is “too simplistic.”  Consequently, some search for multiple factors wearing a systemic lens; they reason that one parent’s individual mean-spirited antics is not enough to cause an unholy alignment. It appears that a systemic perspective, erroneously blames target parents.

A common sense and less complicated view is offered by Dr. Warshak, in his article, Bringing Sense to Parental Alienation: A Look at the Disputes and Evidence (2003). PAS is described as when a child manifests an unreasonable campaign of denigration against, or rejection of one parent, due to the influence of the other parent, in conjunction with the child’s contributions. The campaign is not an occasional episode, but is instead persistent. Still, many dismiss that children are susceptible to suggestibility. Some believe that a child would not turn against a parent, unless the parent had done something to warrant the rejection. People who deny the existence of unjustified alienation believe that children reject a parent only if that parent has abused, neglected, or mistreated them, or demonstrated excessively poor parenting skills (Warshak, 2010). Denying unjustified alienation is punitive. “The position that irrational alienation does not exist essentially means that all rejected parents deserve what they get” (Warshak, 2003).

  Clearly no fair-minded person blames such hatred on the targets themselves (Warshak). Unfortunately, not everyone is fair-minded. Target parents are blamed, shamed, and depicted as high-conflict bickering parents.  Rejected parents endure multiple failed attempts  trying to work with an ex-spouse that is not reasonable. Warshak (2003) clarifies that some believe the contributions of the favored parent are over-emphasized while others take the position that multiple contributing factors are under-emphasized. This does not mean rejected parents are off the hook, but they are not primarily responsible.

According to Fidler and Bala (2010) rejected parents in an effort to cope may withdrawal or react passively. And, as most alienated parents have not been prepared to deal with the extreme behaviors manifested by alienated children, they may not  know how to respond. Clearly, understanding proper responses will aid rejected parents.  Though, as Dr. Gardner originally noted, if the programming by the alienating parent did not occur in the first place, the disorder would not have arisen (2001). One can infer that a rejected parent’s role, is not one of primary responsibility; it is not knowing how to respond. Without a doubt, proper responses may offset alienation, but it is beneficial to understand exactly what alienated parents have to deal with. Sadly, some rejected parents do not get the chance to counterbalance alienation because their ex-spouse refuses to adhere to the parenting plan.

Studies indicate that rejected parents may be working with an ex-spouse who is malicious and vindictive.  They may feel above the law, be deliberate in their actions, or have a mental illness (Fidler & Bala, 2010). Another example of what alienated parents are up against, is depicted by Jaffe, Ashbourne and Mamo, “Although it may seem heavy handed, some parents will only listen to input from the court.” The reality? Alienating parents do not listen to the court.  Jaffee et al. provided an accurate description when they highlighted, “A minority of parents who suffer from personality and mental disorders may ignore the court and spend their waking hours finding ways to exhaust the other parent emotionally and financially” (2010).  Baker & Darnall (2006) also found support for the alienating parent’s defiance.  In regards to parenting time, the most frequently cited response was that alienating parents did not adhere to court orders. In their study, when the rejected parent would go to pick the child up, neither the favored parent, nor the child would be home. Obviously, when parents do not get to see their children, offsetting alienating tactics are futile.   

As Dr. Gardner noted, “Denying reality is obviously a maladaptive way of dealing with a situation.” The reality? Many are  in denial.  Studies indicate that alienating parents are not going to change.  Alienating parents continue to defy court orders, participate in badmouthing, and intentionally turn an innocent child against the other parent. Consequently, it does not seem fair to blame rejected parents.  Dr. Kelly also offered a similar view to Dr. Gardner, “It is the embattled parent, often the one who opposes the divorce in the first place, who initiates and fuels the alignment (Kelly, 2000).  Jaffe et al.(2010) suggests addressing the conflict between the parents and that an understanding of the underlying cause is vital. To address the conflict, it seems logical that one parent is out right furious because the other will not follow court orders. To address the underlying cause requires the acknowledgment that one of the parents may not have desired the divorce. Or, another underlying cause is a truth of the human condition: some folks are simply mean.

Common sense tells us, if one does not initiate and fuel the alignment, rejected parents would not have to learn proper responses to unwarranted rejection and hatred. For the sake of our children, I pray another 25 years will not pass. Waiting another 25 years believing parental alienation is an abuse excuse, tactic, or cover up will result in unwarranted estrangement.  When the favored parent’s behavior contributes significantly to the children’s negative attitudes, leading authorities in the field label this emotional abuse. Our society’s standard of care regarding abused children is to prioritize protecting them from further abuse (Warshak, 2010).  Our society’s standard of care also, as the norm, does not blame victims.  Without a doubt, not all alienated parents will respond properly at all times. Yet, not all parents have the chance to respond. They try, only to find doors are slammed, letters are returned, or no one is at home.  Thankfully, 2010 provided a lot of helpful tools for rejected parents. It is vital we keep in mind that a less than perfect response to unwarranted rejection, does not make one a poor parent.

    Parental Alienation: A Couple of Words of Caution about Parental Alienation             

 Distortion: The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.

Fact: There is nothing theoretical about emotional abuse.  The scientific community has not discredited Parental Alienation.

Distortion: The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality.

Fact:  One cannot discredit “PAS” as a diagnosis because it is not an option for a diagnosis. In the event that it is an option for a diagnosis, the court should not be asked to assume that a child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be alienated have no grounding in reality. Sometimes, there are reasons a child rejects a parent that has nothing to do with parental alienation. But, sometimes a child will irrationally reject a parent because the child has been taught to reject the parent via manipulation .Obviously, thorough assessments from more than one source, in more than one setting must be used. As one tool:  Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N.W. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation, &/or estrangement? A decision tree. Journal of Child Custody, 1(3), 65–106. And, Warshak, R. A. (2002). Misdiagnosis of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(2), 31–52.

Distortion:  It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent.

Fact: Common terminology  will not divert attention away from emotional abuse but would divert attention to the behaviors of the abusive parent (who may  employ verbal tactics, not physical tactics). True: in cases of parental alienation, alienating parents have direct influence on the child’s responses. The child is taught to be disrespectful, intimidating and act discrediting toward the rejected parent.

Distortion: The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence.

Fact: The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated  (all manipulation is probably inappropriate). Some circles in the scientific community, call this parental alienation. It seems subtle indications should not be relied on. Alienated children’s behavioral manifestations stem beyond subtle indications. Yes, in cases of domestic violence the child has  legitimate grounds for rejection. On the other hand, Alienated children sound like little adults. They use  scripted lines and borrowed scenarios. They cannot find any redeeming qualities in the rejected parents and the reasons they give for the irrational alienation are absurd rationalizations.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ

This article is posted with permission from Dr. Richard  Warshak

Answering Critics by Dr. Richard Warshak

The many parents I have helped, women and men, express astonishment that some people demonize me, attempt to tarnish my reputation, and spread misleading and false information about my work and me. Although my supporters far outweigh my detractors, the people seeking to quiet my voice yell loudly and work hard to circulate their misinformation.

Until now I have allowed the personal attacks and gross misrepresentations to go without answer. I understand the mentality of a true believer and realize that clarification of reality and objective evidence will hit the brick wall of a closed mind. For various reasons, these people want to hold on to their beliefs. They cling to misguided ideas rather than acknowledge the widespread mistreatment of children described in Divorce Poison and my other works. In some respects, they resemble people from earlier generations who refused to acknowledge the evidence of their senses that children were being physically and sexually abused with alarming frequency. Just as the professionals who first pointed an accusing finger at a society that tolerated such abuse were attacked, I suppose it is my fate to be the target of similar attacks.

Defending myself against such attacks feels a bit undignified. It seems an unnecessary waste of time, and gives currency to a few fanatics who attempt to alienate my audience from me using the same tactics that some parents use to alienate their children from the other parent. Some of these extremists have lost custody of their children in a ruling that seeks to protect the children from severe doses of divorce poison. Rather than recognize the rationale for the court’s decision, these people believe that the judge either was biased or was foolishly taken in by the other parent’s allegations. Some of these people would have you believe that there is an epidemic of judges who take joy in placing children with parents who beat or sexually molest them. In fact, one website claims a conspiracy of Masonic judges who, in every family court across North America (I am not exaggerating), automatically give custody to pedophiliac fathers who in turn pimp their children to pedophiliac members of the Illuminati (the group profiled in Dan Brown’s novel Angels & Demons). I am not kidding. . . . Nor are they.

As I say in the Afterword to the revised edition of my book, when my wife reads these vicious and absurd accounts, she shakes her head in disbelief at the raw animosity that greets the work I do on behalf of suffering families. She asks, “Don’t they know that you’ve devoted your career to the welfare of children?” The many women I have helped through my writing, consultations, and courtroom testimony cannot understand what motivates the detractors, who claim to be advocates for women.

So why am I writing this article? It occurred to me that those who find value in my work might be confused by the drumbeat of misinformation. The downside of responding to critics is that it fuels their zeal and brings more attention to their smears. They live for the battle and are gratified when anyone takes them seriously. I would rather spend my time providing guidance on how to understand, prevent, and repair damaged parent-child relationships. But, for the sake of those who really want to know, here is some clarification.

One smear that has been making the rounds involves a case where I helped a mother whose children were irrationally alienated. Some important details I cannot divulge because they are not a matter of public record and I wish to protect the family’s privacy. Were these details known, domestic violence activists who criticize my involvement in this case would surely regret their words. They would think twice about circulating the innuendos and arguments raised by the father’s lawyer in his attempt to defeat the mother.

Several mental health professionals concluded that the children’s estrangement from their mother was unreasonable. Even the father’s own expert witness recommended that the one child under the age of 18 be removed from the father’s home (but, for reasons unclear, not placed with his mother).

The case was heard before an arbitrator. The arbitrator found that “the mother was the intentional victim of irrational alienation by her sons, designed and orchestrated by the father.” The decision awarded sole custody to the mother and gave her the authority to make decisions on behalf of her son including, at her discretion, enrolling him in my educational workshop. The Arbitrator’s decision was appealed to the Family Court. The Court did not dispute the findings of irrational alienation. But the judge did rule that the Arbitrator should have ordered another evaluation. In the decision the judge pointed out that I gave no recommendations because, as I made clear to the Arbitrator, I had not conducted a custody evaluation. The judge set aside the Arbitrator’s award and allowed the case to go to a new trial.

Here is where the smears begin. The purpose of my testimony was to educate the court about general issues and the state of knowledge regarding parent-child conflicts and children’s rejection of a parent, and to describe various interventions for families in which the court finds that the children’s rejection of a parent is unjustified, irrational, disproportionate to the child’s experience of the parent, and not in the children’s best interests. An expert witness who testifies in this capacity is obliged to explain the limitations of his work in the case. As is my duty, I clarified the purpose of my testimony and volunteered the information that I had not conducted an evaluation and was not there to make a specific recommendation for this family.

Rather than point out that I had testified in a professionally ethical and objective manner and properly apprised the court of the scope of my work in the case, including limitations, some bloggers imply that the Family Court Judge “discovered” the limitations and that I then had to “admit” that I had not seen the children. This is not what happened. I never testified before the Family Court Judge. The Judge simply noted what I had volunteered in my testimony in the Arbitration. My professional colleagues understand that what I did was precisely in accord with professional ethics.

Now it gets interesting, and this is the part critics conceal from their blogs. This was not the conclusion of the case. A new custody assessment was conducted. The assessment results strongly supported the mother’s position, recommended giving her the authority to enroll her son in Family Bridges, and concluded that the workshop was the best option for this family.

The case did go to trial. But, on the eve of the trial, the father’s lawyer, in what appeared to me to be a desperate last-ditch attempt to try his case in the media when it was clear that the evidence favored the mother, submitted an article to Canada’s Law Times that attacked my workshop as unscientific. Fortunately, the editor recognized distortions in the lawyer’s submission and asked me to submit commentary to set the record straight. My article was published. It effectively refutes the lawyer’s arguments. You do not learn about my article by reading the advocate’s blog posts. (See The Slanted Truth for the use of such tactics by alienating parents.) It is as if it did not exist. You can read my article by clicking here.

What you also never learn from reading the blogger’s accounts of this case is the ultimate outcome. Notwithstanding the father’s lawyer’s maneuvers, again, the mother prevailed on all counts. After hearing all the evidence, the judge concluded that “Mother should have sole legal and residential custody of [the child]. Mother shall have complete authority to make decisions regarding [the child's] welfare. She is not required to consult with anyone before doing so; Mother is specifically authorized to obtain any treatment and/or intervention for [the child] as she, in her sole discretion, deems necessary and appropriate for [the child's] best interests; Mother’s authority described above includes, but is not limited to ‘Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships,’ to enable and assist [the child] in adjusting to living with her.”

By selectively citing the earlier Family Court decision, and concealing the trial outcome, the bloggers leave the impression that the court was critical of Family Bridges and blocked the family from participating in the workshop. In the end, the truth is the exact opposite. (Selective attention is another tactic of alienating parents that critics adopt to try to alienate audiences from my work.)

Here is what the judge wrote in her opinion: “This leaves the Workshop, coupled with a change in custody, as the only potential remedy with any chance of success in this difficult case. . . . The court is faced with compelling evidence that a change in custody, coupled with the Workshop is best for [the child]. . . . The Workshop is a last resort. Obviously it would have been better had these problems been identified and corrected early on. . . . Unfortunately, they were not. This leaves the Workshop as [the child's] best last hope.” [Emphasis added.]

I fully expect detractors to post other information attempting to cast doubt on the wisdom of the judge’s decision in this case (which was essentially identical to the arbitrator’s decision; that is, two different triers of fact, after hearing all the evidence, concluded that the mother should have custody and have the right to enroll her child in Family Bridges). I do not intend to respond to such posts.

As rebuttal to any future innuendoes and misrepresentations, I can state the following. The mother has authorized me to state that she is very pleased with the ultimate outcome of her case. Her formerly alienated son, estranged for six years, participated in, and greatly benefitted from, the four day Family Bridges workshop. He rapidly restored his loving relationship with his mother and they now live happily together.

Parental Alienation and HuffPo’s Divorce Section: Reality & Reason on Matrimonial Mismatch by Monika Logan

The Huffington Post recently featured an article,”Stop Divorce Poison.” The article, if properly understood, disentangles a web of blame.  Accusations that alienated parents, are somehow responsible, is punitive. The idea that both parents are equally at fault is  predicated on assumptions. Dr. Warshak sheds light that alienated parents, similar to survivors of domestic violence, may have married a person that was abusive. Joan Dawson also points out, in her article, No Room for Reason that matrimonial mismatches are a reality. She notes, “Abusers do not come with a sign on their forehead.” She indicates that it is often months or years later, when one finds out the truth.  At the beginning of courtship, it is hard to detect that the person you’re in love with, may later resort to despicable tactics.  Contrary to popular thought, not everyone marries a like-minded person.

Unfortunately, some groups have no room for reason.  Their only explanation to child alienation is that the parent must have been abusive.  They rank and order levels of abuse. No one disputes the horrific outcome of physical assault. Yet, it is forgotten, that some abusers tactics consist only of uncensored verbal snares to minor children.  Beware:  If you are an alienated mother, you will be left in the dust. If you report that your child no longer loves you; you will be questioned and judged.  They believe if your child refuses visitation; it is your fault. They do not believe that words alone, by a manipulative ex-spouse, could sway the mind of a gullible child. Grown women can follow the likes of Warren Jeffs, but some are dumbfounded when  sociopath ex-spouses lure children with lies. If you have an ex-spouse that never hit you, but instead, refuses to cease denigrating you; you too many become alienated. 

Why should parental alienation concern women? Because women are concerned about the emotional well-being of their children. Most would agree; it is not in our children’s best interest to ignore emotional abuse.  Ignoring  parental alienation is  problematic because it casts doubt that long-term emotional abuse is something children just “get over.” (Several studies, not media hype, indicate the damage of relentless denigration, click here, here, and here.  Denying PAS also harms women, published in a respected, peer-reviewed  journal, click here.  )

As Dr. Warshak describes, the article intends to make a few simple points. Some of the points are:  it is wrong to use children as pawns to express hostility or punish a former partner; it is cruel to teach children to hate people who love them, and  it is abusive to force children to choose which they parent they will feel free to love. The crux of the article is that matrimonial mismatches are a reality. The analogy starts off, Mother Theresa does not marry Saddam Hussein.” Judges and court-appointed psychologists recite this bromide when one parent complains about the other. It is meant to convey a sophisticated, balanced, it-takes-two-to-tango view of divorce-related conflict. The system labels these parents a “high-conflict couple,” and assumes that both contribute equally to their disputes (Warshak, 2010).

 In some situations both parents contribute equally, but not in all cases.  It is often overlooked that  a Mother Theresa can marry a Saddam Hussein (especially, as Dawson notes, he is not wearing a sign revealing his true nature). We must admit; the sign may easily be overlooked when we are young and believe we are in love. I share Dawson’s concerns that PA should be distinguished from DV.  It is a tragedy when a protective parent has to live with the fact that his or her child has been placed with an abusive parent. But what about emotional abuse? Parents suffer too when their child is placed with an emotionally abusing parent.

I additionally share Dawson’s concerns that many mothers have made good faith allegations; yet they are doubted.  The difference is that alienated mothers make good faith allegations that after their divorce,  their once loved child  is rejecting. They report their ex-spouse never physically abused them or their child. Instead, they report that their ex-spouse will not follow court orders, and  will not cease denigrating them to their minor child. They report that their child treats them with contempt, in fact, with the same disrespect and demeaning tone that their ex utilized when married.  I cannot help but wonder what they will do when a good mother insists that they did not do anything to deserve such unwarranted hatred. Their messages will be most likely be censored, canceled, and chastised– claiming no man would be clever enough to coax a child into a clouded state of mind control.

“To a good mother who grieves the loss of her children’s love and respect, alienation is not “theoretical” and there is nothing in sounding the alarm about this form of emotional abuse that conflicts with advocating on behalf of victims of domestic violence.” Dr. Warshak, 2010

A Tennessee bill that would evenly split child custody in contentious divorce cases is drawing national attention and dividing groups along gender lines.On one side is an alliance of women’s groups, some judges and the Tennessee Bar Association, who say the change would make divorces tougher to settle and give abusive ex-husbands leverage they shouldn’t have. Spending half of the time with each parent would also impose impractical schedules on kids, they say.

 On the other side are fathers’ rights groups who say kids get deprived of full relationships with both parents. Courts have too long ignored laws calling for custody decisions to be made in children’s best interests, they say, and judges are overly influenced by notions about the mother-child bond.

 The state’s House Children and Family Affairs’ Family Justice Subcommittee is scheduled to meet today to review divorce-related data it requested from the Tennessee Bar Association, as it works to determine whether to send the bill to a second committee that could send it to the full House.

 Other states, including Missouri, start from a presumption of an even custodial split unless there has been abuse, said Janet Richards, a law professor at the University of Memphis who specializes in child custody matters. Tennessee would be alone in requiring clear, convincing evidence that one parent is unfit before dividing custody unequally, she said.

 ”This law sets up a standard of proof that’s just short of the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt,” Richards said.

 Committee hearings on the bill have drawn standing-room-only crowds full of mothers wearing saucer-size lapel stickers that read “Vote no on HB 2916″ and fathers wearing everything from military fatigues to business suits.

Right now, parents divorcing in Tennessee — or unmarried parents trying to work out custody arrangements — are urged to work out a plan with a mediator. Under the pending bill, courts automatically would divide children’s time equally between moms and dads who are unable to agree unless one parent can prove the other utterly unfit.

The way Eric Kyle sees it, he hasn’t been able to properly father his children since his 2005 divorce.

Kyle, who lives in Davidson County, Tenn., wanted his son and daughter to split their time equally between him and his ex-wife, who lives in Williamson County, Tenn. But when Kyle sought an attorney willing to try to negotiate that kind of arrangement, one after another told him the same thing.

“You either have to dirty up your ex and do whatever you have to to get full custody, or you accept what I understand is a pretty standard 80-20 time split,” he said. “Of course, it’s dads that get the children 20% of the time, in most cases.”

Rep. Mike Bell, a Republican and the bill’s key sponsor, said he introduced the bills after constituents’ complaints and hopes it might encourage more parents to reconsider divorce.

“It’s a concern that children are being deprived of one parent or another in most cases in a custody battle,” said Bell, who has been married 25 years and has five children.

Opponents want to scare the public with claims about children being shuttled back and forth and attending multiple schools, said Mike McCormick, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

“I say — with the recognition that there is nothing like (this bill) in the country — all it would actually do is require parents to be on equal footing in courts of law,” McCormick said. The bill ignores the problems some families have, said Kathy Walsh, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Some parents divorce after years of the kind of controlling, domineering or even violent behavior by one party that doesn’t go away just because the relationship ends, Walsh said.

She said the bill could prompt victims to stay with their abusers so they don’t have to leave their kids alone with the other parent.

Monica Gimbles said she doesn’t think the bill is realistic. She is in the process of finding an attorney to work out custody arrangements for her 5-year-old daughter with her onetime fiancé.

“This is the kind of idea that people come up with when they haven’t ever actually taken care of a child, a small child that needs a lot of care and takes a lot of time,” Gimbles said. “It just makes the child’s life topsy-turvy.”

Bruises, Barriers, and Blind Feminists: Denial of Parental Alienation Hurts us All by Monika Logan, LBSW. Please see article, by Preston Thymes

Prior to 1985 people went through divorces. The couples that could not divorce amicably manifested similar patterns, just as they do today. Also, prior to 1985 women obtained custody more often than men. Keep in mind that divorces in the 1980s, similar to today, had a portion that were high conflict. When Garder started observing these cases (not causing the high-conflict, just observing) he noted that, “in about 85% to 90% of the cases the mother was the alienating parent and the father the targeted parent.” Gardner’s work in the 1980s reflected the court system and societal changes, not his personal agenda. Yet, some cannot understand this. He noted, “And I, as the person who first wrote on the phenomenon, was viewed as being biased against women and as being “sexist.” No one denies that PAS may have misconstrued in some cases and that children’s alienation has been utilized as a cover-up and diversionary maneuver designed to deflect exposure of their abuse/neglect (Gardner,2002). Do the painful tragedies of the few but often true, outweigh the heartbreak and mental demise of the majority of children that are in the middle of custody battles? High Conflict divorces makes up about 10% (Center for Divorce Education). We should not ignore this 10%.

As a woman and feminist, I recently reviewed the Power and Control Wheel; I might have missed something during my time at a women’s shelter. Part of the Wheel includes “Using Children” where the children are used to relay messages, visitations are spent harassing, and children are used as threats (that they might be taken away). In PA a parent continues harassing and controlling the ex-partner by manipulating the children to turn against the parent. Parental Alienation shares a lot of commonalities. As a starter, both have vindictive ex-spouses. In both PA and Domestic violence, children are placed in the middle and ultimately both have children that are living without a parent. In PA a parent continues harassing and controlling the ex-partner by manipulating the children to turn against the parent. This controlling element, as I recall, also occurs in DV. Denying PA is to deny mental abuse of children. What about manipulation? You may not be bruised and the kids may not be bruised, so the “proof” might be hard to bring up in court. Thus, if one does not have a bruise, you must not have endured DV? What about internal scars of children?

Lastly, I thought Feminist theory included that all types of oppression were recognized? This means both women and men. Is not having your child turned against you a form of oppression? I would think every feminist should be angered by the possibility of having a child turned against them without just cause. Yet, some may believe that any “weak” woman would not let this happen. Do we not advocate for the disadvantaged women as well? Do not think your above having your ex-spouse out purchase you and manipulate your kids with material gifts. What about the disadvantaged men? I thought feminist theory utilized an egalitarian approach to logic? This includes both women and men that espouse feminist theory.